Christian,
Thanks, that is exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for. I should
have some time to work on this tomorrow.
1. I agree foldshowline is a good name and I'll make that happen.
2. I will check existing local-window options in options.txt.
3. I will update my draft changes options.txt.
4. I will add a reasonable amount of documentation to fold.txt (thanks
for the heads-up on that one) .
I left the one where I don't know what to do for last. You write:
However, I'd strongly suggest to somehow mark those hidden lines (e.g.
by some different highlighting), to make it apparent to the user, that
the lines are really just hidden and they are not accidentally lost
their file content.
I share this concern. As the feature I'm suggesting eliminates any fold
line when activated there is no obvious place to mark hidden lines. If
there were a prefix column we could leverage that. After decades of using
the proposed feature, I mean foldshowline (it has a real name now, thanks),
in the Kedit editor (and IBM's Xedit mainframe editor before that), I have
a pretty strong mental model for how the lines are being filtered even
without fold lines (Kedit calls them shadow lines.) Still, when I'm sharing
my screen I know to turn on line numbers (in vim, :set number) so others
can follow along. We both agree that providing some indication of hidden
lines is desirable (to, and I'll say it, not freak out the user). I have
been unable to come up with a fully satisfactory solution. My best idea is
to automatically turn on line numbers when a window transitions to
nofoldshowline.
If we can't come up with something better, I'm willing to:
1. Implement automatically turning on line numbering when a window
transitions to nofoldshowline. (I know to do this right it gets a little
tricky.)
1. We should probably cache the previous line numbering state and
restore it when (if) the window transitions back to foldshowline.
2. If the user explicitly sets line numbering, foldshowline's cached
line numbering state should probably be cleared. (I understand this could
interact poorly with existing scripts.)
2. Create an option (I'd think a global one) to fully disable the
automatic switching of line numbering.
Maybe this could all be better dealt with at the z command level. I have to
admit I don't think I have enough experience with vim to be comfortable
designing new z command behavior, I'm still learning the vim way. But I
could probably implement the behavior. In fact, if you are willing to
suggest a z command that would do something like:
:set foldmethod=expr
:set foldexpr=getline(v:lnum)!~#'target_text'
:set foldlevel=0
I would implement that too, though it's probably better to save that for
later.
Thanks again for your help.
Jim
On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 6:23 PM Jim Harkins <jimh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I started by looking at the feasibility and wound up with a proof of
> concept, though I intended to get feedback earlier.
>
> *Feature Proposal*
>
> Enable fold text lines to be hidden, allowing more unfolded lines to be
> displayed.
>
> *Use Case*
>
> This feature pairs well with foldmethod=expr. With foldexpr that matches,
> for example, a variable name, only lines with that variable are displayed
> allowing rapid scanning. In this use case, the fold text tends to get in
> the way. If desired, the gaps can be made apparent by turning on line
> numbers, ":set nu".
>
> *Precedent*
>
> Xedit, Kedit, and THE editors implement the ALL command that shows only
> lines that match a target. By default. a "shadow line" is displayed to
> represent excluded lines. The shadow line can be disabled by "SET SHADOW
> OFF". I've seen other editors support this but I can't name them.
>
> While searching for an existing workaround or prior attempt at
> implementing this feature, I easily found occasional requests for this
> functionality going back at least 20 years.
>
> *Status*
>
> I have a proof of concept that I think could be improved with feedback.
>
> Implementation details:
>
> I've implemented a boolean option with window scope provisionally named "
> *foldline*" (abbr. "fdln"). This defaults to TRUE, which enables current
> behavior. Setting foline to FALSE (:set nofoldline) suppresses the display
> of fold text lines. I also considered naming the option "showfoldline", but
> I think starting a fold related command with "fold" is expected. I'm not
> convinced "foldlin" is the best name, but ":set nofoldline" or ":set
> nofdln" has felt okay in use.
>
> *Documentation (could use improvement)*
>
> doc/quickref.txt:
>
> 'foldline' 'fdln' set to display fold text line for a closed line
>
>
> doc/options.txt
>
> *'foldline'* *'fdln'* *'nofoldline'* *'nov'*
> 'foldline' 'fdln' boolean (default on)
> local to window
> {not available when compiled without the |+folding|
> feature}
> When off, fold line is not displayed.
> See |folding|.
>
>
> *Code*
>
> https://github.com/jimhark/vim/tree/foldline
>
> *Tests*
>
> Have not been implemented. If this feature is accepted I can write the
> tests. These would be a big help:
>
> 1. Pointer to your testing documentation and recommended resources
> 2. Example test code:
> 1. For a window scope boolean option.
> 2. For a feature that changes the way the screen is drawn.
>
> I look forward to feedback and an opportunity to get this feature accepted.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
>
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/CACZGLe60PqjstW_dhW9L0ni%3Dzogr25KbbxPy7%3DS%2BB3mu_0BcPg%40mail.gmail.com.
