On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Kana Natsuno wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:34:22 +0900, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
If you're starting out with Vim scripting, you'll need to figure out
the terminology anyway (windows/buffers/tabs=tabpages/etc. which
generally have names & numbers [but not ID's]), so I don't think the
name should be changed.
I already know such terminology and circumstances well,
I didn't intend to suggest otherwise.
%s/you're/one is/
%s/you'll need/one needs/
so that I noted that using the same term to refer different kinds of
objects is considered harmful.
What you wrote is right if we just focus on the id of a "window". How
about the whole functionalities about "windows"? It's also hard to
find right topics on "windows" from the huge :help documents and the
Web if we continute using the same term to refer both kinds of
"windows".
That's just the nature of language. Terms that are useful tend to get
overloaded.
In the case of the Vim documentation "window" virtually never refers to
the entire application window. So, it seems unlikely that v:windowid
(when one knows that Vim windows have numbers/names and not ID's) is
unlikely to be mistaken for a window number. Even if one wanted a
window number in a script, thinking it had an ID, it'd seem better to
call it w:id (though that might run contrary to the purposes of 'v:' and
'w:').
Personally, I think it's way too late to change the Vim-specific term
"window" to "viewport". It's not too late to change v:windowid to
v:(somethingelse), but without a clearly-better alternative, it's
probably not worth arguing too much (for my part, I'm mainly
bikeshedding[1]).
--
Best,
Ben
[1] http://000066.bikeshed.com/
--
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
