> So I would encourage you not to view this discussion as opposition to > the idea. Quite the reverse. This discussion is actually an important > part of making this idea happen. We need to discuss these things so we > can do it the best way possible, without *needlessly* breaking backward > compatibility, without *needlessly* or *significantly* lowering > efficiency, and without *unnecessarily* wasting people's time.
Ah, sorry then. Yes I felt it a bit like a resistance to change. I've unfortunately seen this happen too often... thanks for setting me back on the right track :) > So, to move it to the next stage, is anyone in a position to volunteer > to write up a more specific design (which probably needs to be written > with reference both to this email discussion and the Vim source code)? > Also, is anyone in a position to volunteer to help with implementation > once we have a design? I'd volunteer but I think the new post from Bram doesn't let a lot of room for work to do on the design part... I think he outlined a specific task to do (extend the existing modifier byte sequence) and put a big no on all the alternatives discussed. All-in-all if this answers the needs we have I'm for it, and it looks as a fairly easy task to do (compared to the struct rewrite). Philippe -- 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
