On 01/12/08 14:18, Bill McCarthy wrote:
> On Sun 30-Nov-08 4:47pm -0600, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
>
>> On 30/11/08 12:53, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>>> Patch 7.2.058
>>> Problem: Can't add a patch name to the ":version" output.
>>> Solution: Add the extra_patches array.
>>> Files: src/version.c
>> [...]
>>
>> Nice new feature :-). However, unlike the "Modified by" line and the
>> "highest standard patch number", it is reflected only in the output of
>> ":version" -- not on the ":intro" screen, where even the fact that
>> "extra" patches are present does not appear. Is this intentional?
>
> Interesting. I've added the extra patch description similar
> to yours. A similar patch to version.c could be added to
> the floating point patch.
>
> This would require, whenever eval.c is changed: (1)
> reversing the patch, (2) applying Bram's patches then (3)
> reapplying the floating point patch. This is the same
> process others may use today - no change.
>
>
Well, as long as the patch applies (with line shifts but no errors)
there's no urgency to unapply-reapply, I suppose.
Anyway, as soon as one has more than one "extra patch" applied,
reversing the earlier one will give lineshifts, if only because it is
now lower in version.c
See also the variant with "#ifdef FEAT_FLOAT" in the next post to the
one you quoted above. (I'm using common sources [with a shadowdir] for a
huge gvim and a tiny vi, as close as I can get to both ends of the
capability range, and I don't want vi (with -float) to boast about a
patch which is actually disabled in it.)
Best regards,
Tony.
--
There once was a girl named Irene
Who lived on distilled kerosene
But she started absorbin'
A new hydrocarbon
And since then has never benzene.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
