Sorry about my cutting into your topic. I think vim shouldn't use unique value for timer interval 'updatetime'. I guess most of users won't like this interface. Because, some script application may run the timer quickly. but someone don't expect.
We SHOULD have more consider about this issue. It is not good to get a decision or result in a hurry. I hope more discussion about this. Below is my two suggestion: 1. updatetime for each buffer. split updatetime option to global/buffer. 2. add setInterval instead of CursorHoldR. I guess this is better. Thanks. - Yasuhiro Matsumoto On Friday, May 6, 2011 2:56:32 PM UTC+9, Christian Brabandt wrote: Hi Bram! On Do, 05 Mai 2011, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > It's simpler if you have it either return zero, KE_CURSORHOLD or > KE_CURSORHOLDR. > > Would we need a separate CursorHoldRepeat and CursorHoldRepeatI? So > that we can separate Normal and Insert mode? Would at least be more > consistent. Attached is an updated patch. Mit freundlichen Gr��en Christian -- -- 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
