On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:19:42 -0400, Benji Fisher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, I think I've found a solution that works for me. It turns out
>> that what was causing my problems was where vim interpreted a number
>> following a marker as a fold level. A line like this would mess up my
>> folds:
>>
>> int array[16] = {0};
>>
>> In those cases it's easy enough to insert a space before the 0, but
>> there are cases where it's not that easy, or not desireable.
>>
>> What I ended up doing was changing fold.c to not look for a fold level
>> after a marker, and recompiling. Now everything seems to work great,
>> and I don't notice any slowdown.
>>
>> Perhaps there should be an option for not interpreting numbers after a
>> fold marker as a fold level, but I don't know if this is causing
>> enough people grief that it would be included. I'm happy with my quick
>> fix for now.
> I am surprised that {0} is recognized as a fold marker. Do you
>have 'foldmarker' set to the default value of {{{,}}} or something else?
>In my limited tests (try zc in Normal mode and see whether vim throws an
>error message) {0} is not recognized as a fold marker but {{{0}}} is.
I have foldmarker set to {,} to make folds automatically in languages
like C, C++, Java, C#, PHP, Perl, etc.
--
Be seeing you.
