Lech Lorens <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7 September 2011 09:26, Sektor van Skijlen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> With this set of cinoptions: >> cinoptions=:0,=1s,g0,j1 > > [...] > >> I can't find anything about this - is that already fixed? > > I don't think so (doesn't work for me on Vim 7.3.189 unless I remove > the j1 setting from 'cino'). > > You can file a bug report here: http://code.google.com/p/vim/issues/list > > What kind of a function call is it supposed to be? IIRC the new C++ standard > allows anonymous classes inside function calls. Is it the case? Or perhaps the > new initialisation syntax of an r-value?
Vim-7.3.289 still shows the same "bug". But is it a bug? The example looks like invalid c code so we can't really expect Vim from getting it "right" (whatever right means on invalid code). Well, 'b' could be a macro that expands the semi-colon so it can be valid code. But this is too tricky for Vim. The only way to get it right would be to rely on compiler information. Can clang provide information for formatting code for example? Vim only uses heuristics so it's bound to be wrong on odd looking code. We can't expect Vim to contain a C & C++ compiler. It does fair job at formating & highlighting. Some updates maybe needed for common idioms in c++0x if Vim does not get them right. Regards -- Dominique -- 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
