> Calling functions would be a very common thing. Thus I would keep the
> name as short as possible: vim.f.bufnr('%')
Adding cryptic names is not a good idea. Also note that calling built-in
functions it is not so common and will not become more common later. Most used
after examining sources of L9, Python-mode-klen, Gundo, clang_complete,
ConqueShell, pyinteractive, threesomelib, powerline, ConqueGDB: get variable,
set variable (obviously because it is the easiest way of interaction between
python and VimL code aside from using bindeval), set option (but not get it;
powerline is most extensive in getting options), call built-in function (bufnr
and other buf*, feedkeys, expand, other), call external function (mostly via
vim.command: second easiest way of interaction, used in case you don’t need
reply from the function). Most used is calling random commands: :normal, buffer
and window manipulations, other (setting variables and options was counted
separately).
Subitem “bufnr and other buf*” should be normally replaced with buffer objects
manipulations (some more attributes are to be added). Item “call external
function” should not exist in pure-python plugin. Removing this moves calling
random functions to one of the last places. And note that getting rid of
necessity to use VimL functions was claimed as one of the goals.
> No, just the difference of passing the whole string to vim.eval vs.
> processing the arguments in Python and passing the result of that to
> Vim.
It is already there.
--
--
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.
