On 7/2/06, Mikolaj Machowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dnia niedziela, 2 lipca 2006 12:06, Nikolai Weibull napisał:
> On 7/1/06, justin constantino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > E706: Variable type mismatch
> >
> > As a minor improvement, I think it would be nice if you could do:
> >
> > let foo = "one,two,three"
> > let! foo = split(foo, ',')
>
> I think we should just remove the whole restriction.
>
Definitely not. I was thinking about suggestion of :let! few times before
and each time I was throwing it away. For example :let allows to change
settings. Silently dropping changing of option value or setting it to
some absurd setting would be Bad Thing(tm).
I'd like to see how current :let is so super-intelligent
so that it prevents assignment of what you call "absurd setting"
to the &options.
Consider string-to-number assignment rules.
:let &readonly="abc" " silently allowed
:let &shiftwidth="xyz" " silently allowed
:let &statusline=123 " silently allowed
Just normal silent string-to-nubmer (and number to string,
whre applicable) conversion well-accepted in interpreted languages.
Where did you see the "intelligent prevention of absurd values"
in the existing :let ? If anything, it's boolean and numeric
nature of some options that forces corresponsing conversion, or
string nature of the other options.
It forces :let into silent type conversion, right now.
This is exactly what prompred Justin and Nikolai to ask for
analogous silent type conversion between lists and strings.
Yakov
