Bram,
In a thread started here [0] back in July I reported a problem I was
having with messages not being displayed in the right order. It was
determined during that thread that there was a difference of behavior
based on whether hidden was set or not. Buried in one of the later
messages, I asked you if this was intentional or a bug, but I haven't
heard back from you. You weren't active on the list at the time; I
assume you were on vacation/moving. I guess that my buried query didn't
catch your attention when you were catching up on mail.
Here is the summary:
-----
vim -u NONE -U NONE somefile.txt
:e testbuf.vim
" if testbuf.vim is new, paste the TestBuf function below and :w
:let g:testbuf = 2 " the buffer number of testbuf.vim
:so %
:b #
" we are now set up to demonstrate the problem
:call TestBuf()
" this should display Done with TestBuf (found = 3)
:set hidden
:call TestBuf()
" this displays "somefile.txt" line 1 of...
:set nohidden
:call TestBuf()
" this still displays "somefile.txt"...
" You must switch buffers at least once after :set nohidden before you
" get the original (desired) behavior back.
----- TestBuf
function! TestBuf()
let curbuf = bufnr("%")
exec "b" g:testbuf
let found = search('t.st')
exec "b" curbuf
echomsg 'Done with TestBuf (found = '.found.')'
endfunction
-----
A separate problem is that changing both occurrences of exec "b"... to
silent exec "b"... does not change anything; that is, the output of
exec "b"... is not suppressed (when hidden is set).
I feel that both of these are bugs, but I wanted to know if there was
a reason that you thought these were the correct behaviors (or perhaps
it is simply impractical to change).
Thanks...Marvin
[0] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vimdev/message/44273
