On Friday, August 8, 2014 4:03:32 PM UTC-4, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > I wonder, is an option the right way to change behavior?
I've thought of three possibilities: 1) Make it a flag--one person suggested "-bfs". I tried this first, but don't understand how the "ex_" functions work yet, and I don't want to confuse ":edit" since ":find" and ":edit" share one exarg_T. Some advice would be appreciated. 2) Add a different command, like ":near" that use BFS. 3) The option. (1) and (2) seem reasonable, but I like (3) because there may be other places in vim that could use BFS over DFS (findfile(), finddir(), :Explore, etc), but I suppose that has the same lack of control. What has vim done in the past when faced with such design decisions? > E.g. one might not what to change > > tags file search. A few places in vim's source, an option is disabled and then re-enabled after the routine is finished. Would that be fine? > > It would be good to have more tests for this. The find-file stuff has > > had several bugs in the past. I'll get right on it. > > > > -- > > hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict: > > 6. You refuse to go to a vacation spot with no electricity and no phone lines. > > > > /// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ > > /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ > > \\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org /// > > \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org /// -- -- 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/d/optout.
