On 1/7/07, A.J.Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> On 1/7/07, A.J.Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Also attached is a patch to disable guioptions="t" (tearoff menus) when > > > compiled with FEAT_GUI_GNOME, also for desktop consistency.
> > Hey, wait! Even gvim for Windows has tearoff menus, which is a great > > feature, > > available in no other Windows programs AFAIK. Why disable it in Gnome > > versions > > on the pretext that other Gnome programs don't have it? If you don't > > like the > > availability of tearoff menus, include ":set guioptions-=t" in your > > vimrc, but > > don't deprive me of this feature. And don't tell me that I can just > > compile > > "with GTK but without Gnome": I want a Gnome gvim for other reasons, > > such as > > the ability to save its session when the KDE window manager closes.
> Eh, you who want tearoff menus (perhaps the most stupid GUI design > choice ever) can include ":set guioptions+=t" in your vimrc. Not that > I'd include 'm' in my guioptions either. Not that I'd run the gui for > that matter.
At the moment I can. If the OP's patch makes it to the "official" distributions (Bram forbid!) it won't work anymore
(Seriously, does it really make sense to write "OP", which I assume means "Original Poster", instead of "Ed"? We're not in the military...we don't need acronyms and abbreviations for everything. It's not cool and it's not helpful. It just makes reading what you've written more difficult. I'm not trying to police this mailing list, but come on, what's the point? And if I ever see something like YMMV, IANAL (hey, if you're not a lawyer, then why are you giving legal advice in the first place?), or IAHFRTOUAAATEM (I Am , However, A Fucking Retard That Only Uses Acronyms And Abbreviations To Express Myself) on this list, I'll seriously consider unsubscribing.) All his patch does is remove 't' from the default value of 'guioptions' for UNIX GUI builds that aren't Mac OS builds that have GNOME support enabled. It's quite clear if you look at the diff.
> > This sounds to me like "I don't want it, therefore you cannot have > > it", a form > > of totalitarianism completely out of place in Vim.
> Last time I checked, we had a benevolent dictator for a ruler that has > ruled to that effect, many times in the past.
"Benevolent dictator" is a contradiction in terms.
And that's the joke. (And if Bram ever goes off the deep end, we'll always have the source - although I don't see who'd pick it up.)
Removing features sounds extremely un-Vim-like to me.
Again, nothing is being removed. (Coincidentally, I consider not adding features extremely Vim-like.) nikolai
