Hi Bram!
On Fr, 21 Okt 2016, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> I thought I already mentioned this: I think it's better to explain this
> with the command, instead of having some sequences in autocmd.txt. The
> idea is that you are explaining what the command is doing.
I am not sure I follow. You mean to add the sequences to every command
that edits a new file (:tabedit, :new, :sp :argedit, :pedit, ...)?
Wouldn't that add possibly the same info at way to many places?
I would rather have this at autocmd.txt at least in the beginning.
Later, if we have examples for all different commands, we can move it to
a different place.
> It's probably best to specify the order of autocmd events. Some may not
> always be triggered (e.g., when a buffer was hidden). That is something
> that needs to be explained with the autocommand, not repeating it in
> every place where it might be triggered.
I tend to agree, however since there are so different autocommands, I
think to have a sample for e.g. tabedit makes sense, since it is not
always obvious, in what order the different autocommands are executed.
Best,
Christian
--
Der Undank ist immer eine Art Schwäche. Ich habe nie gesehen, daß
tüchtige Menschen undankbar gewesen wären.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
--
--
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.
