On 20:53 Sat 23 Mar     , Ingo Karkat wrote:
> On 23-Mar-13 20:21:58 +0100, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> 
> > Hi Ingo!
> > 
> > On Sa, 23 Mär 2013, Ingo Karkat wrote:
> > 
> >> On 23-Mar-13 17:26:13 +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> >>
> >>> Christian Brabandt wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sa, 23 Mär 2013, Marcin Szamotulski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dear Vim_Dev,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If one is in the directory of the current file '%:h:h' expands to '.',
> >>>>> while it should expand tas '%:p:h:h' does.  This is probably is not very
> >>>>> useful case since using '../' is much simpler, though it might be used
> >>>>> in a plugin (I've never been hit by this though).  Expansion of '%:h:h'
> >>>>> works fine when the current directory is not where the current file is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Another, similar issue is when the current file is:
> >>>>> /home/user/directory/file.txt
> >>>>> and the current directory is 
> >>>>> /home/user
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then both '%:h:h' and '%:h:h:h' expand to '.'.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think this patch fixes it. It does so, by noticing, whether *fnamep 
> >>>> has been set to '.' and if so and we are still trying to resolve one 
> >>>> level up, will resolve '.' to an absolute path.
> >>>
> >>> I don't really like this.  If one wants to go above the current
> >>> directory you can use ":p".
> > 
> > Indeed and I really don't mind here. Current version is ok for me.
> 
> Granted, it's a corner case, but why not make it more consistent? One trap 
> less,
> one thing less to code around in plugins.
> 
> >> Can't we change the patch so that it turns into the relative upwards
> >> move ".." (then "../..", etc.)?! This way, it stays relative, and one
> >> has to use :p to get absolute paths.
> > 
> > You might end up with many ../../../../ and I don't think this help.
> 
> It's certainly not nice to look at, but expand() will probably mostly be used 
> in
> custom functions, anyway. I can imagine use cases where one wants to go
> programatically to a parent-parent-parent, and maybe stay in relative 
> addressing
> (though I would prefer absolute addresses with :p then, too).
> 
> -- regards, ingo
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 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 because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "vim_dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> 

For me %:h:h being the same as %:h is quite not intuitive.  I only hope
that in my plugins whenever I used :h is have added :p before it.
I think mostly about plugin writers who might not know this corner case.

Best regards,
Marcin

-- 
-- 
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 because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Raspunde prin e-mail lui