On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Sergey Khorev <[email protected]>wrote:
> > I don't deny that a *lot* of effort went into documenting vim. But that > > doesn't mean it can't be improved. > > Agreed. > > > I said as much in my previous message: "highlighting ought to work > correctly > > without turning full syntax coloring on, which I'm guessing most would > not > > want on by default" (there was a typo in that phrase -- I typed 'more' > when > > I meant 'most'). > > The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that there is an > > obvious bug here: without syntax on, paren highlighting is on but does > does > > not work correctly in the case I've cited (though % does). > > The cause is simple: % is implemented in nv_percent function in Vim > source and matchparen is a Vim plugin > ($VIMRUNTIME/plugin/matchparen.vim) which relies on the names of > syntax highlighting groups to skip over string literals etc. > You seem to be saying, then, that matchparen depends on 'syntax on' to work correctly, at least in this case and perhaps others? If that's true, then matchparen ought to be disabled unless syntax is enabled, since it depends on it, and the documentation ought to explain that clearly. The current situation, where % does the right thing and highlighting does the wrong thing with syntax disabled, is clearly wrong. /Don > > -- > Sergey Khorev > http://sites.google.com/site/khorser > Can anybody think of a good tagline I can steal? > > -- > 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 > -- 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
