On Jun 4, 2013 3:26 AM, "Marc Weber" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Excerpts from ZyX ZyX's message of Mon Jun 03 23:11:58 +0200 2013:
> > The discussion has now gone into the direction when I will be against
> > automatic sourcing of anything related to python.
> Wow.. peace. I don't want to be offensive. And its hard to follow this
> argument. "this direction" is not very descriptive.

I am no longer seeing why automatic sourcing of any python file from any
directory should exist in case loadpyplugin() is implemented.

> My goals:
>   - make python (or any other scripting language) be as powerful as VimL
>     is. Thus if we extend python, try to use an interface which can be
>     extended to also include ruby, perl, ..
>   - keep simple things simple
>   - allow complicated things
>
> If you think differently, then put your ideas / thoughts on your draft
page
> https://gist.github.com/ZyX-I/5561409 so that I can take time, read it
> up, and think about it.
>
> The idea is to:
> 1) gather what I/you/ others want
> 2) find all ways which could help getting there
> 3) list pro/cons
> 4) decide on a solution and start implementing the most valuable
>   features first.
>
> I'm not sure in which phase we are. pythonx clearly showed that
> we may be stuck at 1).

You should have separated code. Code with pythonx commands and functions
did not cause discussion, automatic loading did.

> Improving python support is not the most simple thing, and we should try
> hard to get it right for everybody who is interested in it.
> Ensuring this requires us to talk about what we want.
>
> What I've learned by your input (thanks!):
>   - I can import/access the global namespace called __main__ always
>   - It is good and easily possible to hide plugin initialization code from
>     each other
>
> I've updated my file:
>
http://vim-wiki.mawercer.de/wiki/vim74/improving-python-support-drafts.html
>
> Please pay attention to the comparing-execfile-vs-load_source link.
>
> Summary: load_source puts variables and functions in both locals()
> and globals() whereas execfile puts assigments into globals() and
> functions into locals()

There are no locals in case using load_source. It does not put things into
both, there just is only one dictionary. If I wrote the implementation
though it will also show the same: why take care about two dictionaries
when you can leave with one? In python code writing execfile(, {}, {}) is
faster then saving dict somewhere thus I used this in illustration, but in
C it would be the opposite. In any case with proposed contents of file it
is irrelevant.

> Does this make a difference matter? I've not been aware of that
> difference.
>
> If you have arguments for one or the other solution then just edit that
> wiki file.
>
> Marc Weber
>
> --
> --
> 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.
>
>

-- 
-- 
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