Hello, > No worries, but I'd argue that they are not solutions since > they aren't currently working for me. I don't think the user > should be penalised if a plugin writer doesn't check for > existing mappings. The way it stands right now a user cannot > prevent a plugin writer from overwriting their maps. I'd > like to be able to define a map in my vimrc and not have it > be unexpectedly redefined in certain buffers, similar to the > may you might use use the `final' keyword in Java. Do you > foresee any problems in allowing users to do this?
Maybe the community of active plugin developers should consider a kind of "Plugin Writer's Codex" -- how should a plugin behave. Such a codex should be small and simple in order to not shy away the casual plugin writer. But it should focus on a few important points and it should be actively advertised by the more "professional" authors. One possible point could be: - a common way to make mappings optional Maybe a second-level could be provided for those who want to dive deeper into plugin writing: - use <Plug> - use <Leader> Putting the burden on the user who has to take radical actions to get a plugin to behave well is really not an option for me. I think, with a high quality standard of the "professional" plugins, which are not only single shots to solve an immediate problem, the community would benefit in general. Just my 2ยข. Sincerely Meikel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
