Thank you for your meticulous reply :-) On 7月17日, 下午4时39分, Nikolai Weibull <n...@bitwi.se> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:00, StarWing<weasley...@sina.com> wrote: > > On 7月17日, 上午5时17分, Nikolai Weibull <n...@bitwi.se> wrote: > >> Now you’re losing me again. What does this matter? Copy-on-write? > >> It seems that you’ve just read a book on operating-system design or > >> something and want to, ahem, rewrite Emacs. > > OK. it's very important, for me. yes. I really just read a book on > > operating system and found that I can use these tech to improve Vim. > > I don’t see how. > > > IMHO, Vim has several issues: > > - it has separate Eval system and Inner implement. so you can't > > simply use script to hand all state of Vim. > > It’s not as flexible as elisp, no. >
But it can be. > > - it has memory leaks ( a dozen of patch are made for it), and it > > waste of memory (copy lines for undo, for submatch(), etc). > > This I have a hard time believing. > > > - it isn't thread-safe. so you can't load service while loading > > file. > > True, but, as already stated, fixing that is going to basically > require a complete overhaul of the Vim source code. > that's really a long boring job, is it? > > - it has a weak language, can't handle all functional of Vim, and > > slow. > > True, but this isn’t anything new and I don’t see how what you’re > proposing (still unclear on what it is that you’re actually proposing, > though) solves that. > > > - it had s weak reguiar expression module, just can handle context > > free pattern. > > Um, what? > > The problem with Vim’s regular expression implementation is that it > uses backtracking to match. This is more or less required, as Vim’s > ”regular expressions” include backreferences, which, as it turns out, > aren’t regular at all. > > Regular expressions can’t match context-free grammars. That’s > basically the whole point of regular expressions. NFAs, TFAs, and > regular expressions are deeply intertwined, just as context-free > grammars and NDPAs are deeply intertwined. Irregular expressions are > not as clearcut, but they certainly can’t match context-free grammars. > But Why you can use perl patterns to match paren? because it support recursive in pattern, and you can integration codes into patterns. but that's not necessary. just a parser can do recursive thing. (or current :syntax command, but It can't do anything other than highlight) can you write a pattern to replaced foo to bar in code, but not in string and comment? that's useful, but Vim pattern doesn't support that :-( maybe makes user can get current syntax state easily is better. > > and file pattern & text pattern has different format. > > So? That’s to be expected. That makes code complex, maybe a interchangeable flexable regex engine is better? > > - it writes repeat code for same function. in writefile/readfile, > > the IO is just rewrite, so we can't hand file encoding, file > > information, etc. with it. there are amount of switch block in > > code, they just for the same purpose. just use a thread-safe mode > > invoke function to replace them will offer flexable and space. > > I don’t see how lack of reuse, which does exist, yes, has much to do > with being thread safe. Maybe Vim can make a hal to include all lower level function :-) > > then, you see, the regex module is the part of service. I prepare made > > it more powerful, complete, just like perl regex (can you write a Vim > > regex to handle paren-match?). > > Yeah, that’s not the problem. Again, don’t use regular expressions to > match nested structures. But how? I think sometimes it's necessary. (just the example above). > >> By the way, I still haven’t written the article I was going to write > >> on this, but Vim’s current :syntax command is powerful enough to parse > >> LALR(1) grammars, and perhaps others as well, in a recursive descent > >> fashion. > > can you use :syntax to write a real "syntax" highlight script? in: > > (foo)*bar > > can you make foo highlight as a type when there is: > > > typedef int foo; > > before, and highlight foo as a variable when I delete the typedef > > line? > > No, but that’s because the C grammar isn’t context-free. And, by the > way, syntax is not the same thing as semantics, which is what you’re > looking for. > Yes, I said semantics, i forgot that word :-\ Is it important in your mind? I think it's funny and powerful. > > Vim syntax command is great, but it can't handle informations in > > parsing. one reason is VimL is so slow, another reason is it can't > > avoid parsing error. > > :syntax being slow or not has nothing to do with VimL being slow. :function is slow, either. it just copy lines, do parse time and time. maybe a bytecode compiler will make it better. but before that we should package the commands first, that's the original idea I have. and the idea growes as now. we discuss the possible and impossible of Vim. but I think we should make things easy to get more possible and less impossible. A middle level language is needed, in my mind (just like elisp in emacs) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
