On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Tony Mechelynck <antoine.mechely...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/01/09 09:48, Dominique Pelle wrote: > > Benjamin Fritz wrote > > > > > A patch is attached for the behavior discussed in > > > these threads: > > > http://groups.google.com/group/vim_use/browse_thread/thread/8532e7236f113ab7/0b508a50b767a1e1 > > > http://groups.google.com/group/vim_dev/browse_thread/thread/56d5debad6f5f351/44cc7eb3b4787440 > > > > > > [...] > > > > That's very nice and useful. Thanks. > > One minor comment. In syntax.txt, I read: > > > > If you use this option, it would not be possible to > > open the folds > > > > I think it should be... > > > > If you used this option, it would not be possible to > > open the folds > > > > :s/use/&d/ > > > > -- Dominique > > Another possibility is: > > If you use this version, it won't be possible to > open the folds. (s/version/option/ but this is irrelevant to the discussion.) > ...used...would not... makes it seem that no one would > ever use the option in question. Yes, this is better, but it should be If you :let html_no_foldcolumn = 1 it won't be possible to open the folds unless you use :let html_hover_unfold = 1 or whatever the correct usage is. Alternatively remove the sentence altogether and say: :let html_hover_unfold = 1 will use CSS 2.0 to allow a user to open a fold by hovering the mouse pointer over it. This is useful when using :let html_no_foldcolumn = 1. --Antony --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
