On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:23 PM, James Vega <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:56:59PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > > > Jordan Lewis wrote: > > > I suppose the argument could be made that the user who has added undo > > > persistence to her vimrc would have read enough of the documentation to > know > > > that she must also set undodir if she doesn't want a polluted current > > > working directory. I don't think that this argument is strong enough to > > > warrant using the new default behavior, though, since a less clued-in > user > > > might not understand why his working directory is suddenly full of dot > > > files. > > > > It's a bit like using backup files. The undo files are hidden (start > > with a dot), thus are less intrusive. It's also like swap files, they > > also go in the same directory as the file, by default. Still, when a > > directory is not writable swap files need to go elsewhere. Undo files > > won't be written when a file is not writable. > > Are the undo files supposed to be hidden when 'undodir' is not the > current directory? If so, that's not currently the case. > No, they should not be hidden - in the common case of a dedicated directory for undo files, this behavior would be unnecessary, and possibly lead to confusion when the directory is examined and found at first glance to be empty. - Jordan -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
