On 2016-01-06, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> On Mo, 04 Jan 2016, Gary Johnson wrote:
> > I'm in the same situation. I've been using
> >
> > setlocal foldmethod=marker
> > setlocal foldmarker={,}
> >
> > to have convenient folding of C blocks. Every now and then the
> > folding would become corrupted by an initialization such as your
> >
> > static long days[13] = {30, 31, 28, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 30, 31, 30,
> > 31} ;
>
> Hm, shouldn't the default value of 'foldminlines' make sure, that this
> line is not folded?
The problem was not that that line was folded. The problem was that
the "{30" sequence on that line was interpreted as the beginning of
a fold with level 30. That resulted in the level of all subsequent
folds (until the next "{<integer>") being too high and the folds
being undesirably closed.
Consider the following example. Folding is being used to close
functions in this C file.
=========================== foldlevel=99 ===========================
int x = 0;
void foo(void)
{
x = 1;
}
void bar(void)
{
static int a[] = {30, 60, 90};
x = 2;
}
void baz(void)
{
x = 3;
}
====================================================================
The following is the desired appearance after typing zM and is
achieved by the foldexpr method I posted previously.
=================== foldlevel=0 foldmethod=expr ====================
int x = 0;
void foo(void)
+-- 3 lines --------------------------------------------------------
void bar(void)
+-- 5 lines --------------------------------------------------------
void baz(void)
+-- 3 lines --------------------------------------------------------
====================================================================
The following is what happens if the foldmethod is marker and the
foldmarkers are {,}. All the folds below the initialization of a[]
are closed because the }'s at the ends of the initialization and of
bar() don't lower the fold level enough for the text to be unfolded.
================== foldlevel=0 foldmethod=marker ===================
int x = 0;
void foo(void)
+-- 3 lines --------------------------------------------------------
void bar(void)
+-- 10 lines -------------------------------------------------------
====================================================================
Even after raising the foldlevel to 3, all the folds below the
initialization of a[] are still closed.
================== foldlevel=3 foldmethod=marker ===================
int x = 0;
void foo(void)
{
x = 1;
}
void bar(void)
{
+----- 9 lines --------------------------------------------------
====================================================================
I understand why all of the above occur. They just illustrate that
using foldmarker={,} without being able to disable the marker
fold level tag is not satisfactory for folding C blocks.
Regards,
Gary
--
--
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.
