On 4/13/09, Tony Mechelynck wrote: > >On 14/04/09 00:50, Matt Wozniski wrote: >> >> On 4/13/09, Gary Johnson wrote: >>> >>> On 2009-04-14, Lech Lorens wrote: >>>> The attached patch changes the default 'foldmethod' for the quickfix >>>> window to manual. >>> >>> >>> I'm a little concerned about applying such fine tuning of individual >>> window behavior to the source code. If there is a general rule in >>> vim for the option values that windows inherit when they are >>> created, I think we should use that general rule unless there is a >>> compelling reason to do otherwise. >> >> Well... I'm not sure I agree. The quickfix, location list, and >> command-line windows are already very distinct from any other windows >> you can create. They behave differently, they have special commands >> that open and close them, they have key bindings that only apply in >> that one type of window. It seems reasonable that the code for these >> types of windows should be as centralized as possible - doing it all >> in vimscript would be a noble goal, but is certainly beyond the >> abilities that are currently available in vimscript, and barring that, >> I think that all of their special-case behavior should be held in the >> source code. > > Why do you think it's impossible to define quickfix folding in > vimscript? IMHO, a "reasonable" folding scheme would be to fold qf lines > together if they refer to errors/matches in the same source file. I > don't think that would be hard to implement in vimscript, with a > well-crafted "expression" folding method.
No, you misinterpreted what I said. It's definitely possible to define the *folding* behavior for quickfix windows in vimscript, but it's not possible to create a window that behaves like a quickfix window in vimscript without using the quickfix commands. For instance, there's no way to emulate what :make does in vimscript without duplicating all of the 'errorformat' logic that's currently in C. > As for the command-line window, that's even simpler: I believe it > deserves no folding at all. Again, I wasn't talking specifically about folding, I was talking about all the behavior for a command-line window. You can't use vimscript to create a window that the cursor can't leave, other than by going through the special-casing in C for a command-line window. > Also, moving everything to C code means harder to debug, Yep > harder to change, Yep > and practically impossible to customize. Well... no. This would only change the default foldmethod, an autocmd could still change the behavior from the default to match the user's preferences. And, a default of "no folding" with possible user-supplied vimscript to make it possible to fold related lines together is probably better than defaulting to folding related things. > I'm in favour of having the maximum possible in vimscript, and only > move to C code what cannot be done in vimscript, or only at an > unacceptable performance loss. I'm in favor of keeping all of the logic for the special window types in one place. I agree that it would be better if that place could be vimscript, but it can't. ~Matt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
