Hari Krishna Dara wrote:
> I am observing what might be inconsistency in the order in which vim
> fires autocommands. First, ovserving the order of buffer and window events,
>
> - Using :new:
>
> WinLeave
> WinEnter
> BufLeave
> BufEnter
>
> - Using :wincmd w
>
> BufLeave
> WinLeave
> WinEnter
> BufEnter
>
>
> When combined with tab operations,
>
> - Using, :tabe:
>
> WinLeave
> TabLeave
> TabEnter
> WinEnter
> BufLeave
> BufEnter
>
> - Using :tabnext:
>
> BufLeave
> WinLeave
> TabLeave
> WinEnter
> TabEnter
> BufEnter
>
> Extrapolating the first two, I was expecting these to be
>
> - For tabe:
>
> TabLeave
> TabEnter
> WinLeave
> WinEnter
> BufLeave
> BufEnter
>
> - For :tabnext:
>
> BufLeave
> WinLeave
> TabLeave
> TabEnter
> WinEnter
> BufEnter
>
> Is the existing behavior expected? Does anyone agree that it is
> inconsistent? I am even surprised that they should differ between
> switching between the existing windows/tabs and creating new ones.
The problem with autocommands is that they must run in a valid
environment to avoid trouble (as in a crashing Vim). This is quite
tricky, especially in combination with error handling (e.g., not being
able to abandon a buffer).
The order of autocommands changed at a late moment in 7.0 development to
work around problems (no valid window when TabEnter was triggered, if I
remember correctly). I rather not change it again, it might introduce
bugs.
--
DINGO: And after the spanking ... the oral sex.
GALAHAD: Oh, dear! Well, I...
GIRLS: The oral sex ... The oral sex.
GALAHAD: Well, I suppose I could stay a BIT longer.
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
