mattn <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you are thinking vim9 accept to use lambda in the expression in while/for,
> it will be confusable.
>
> while {ｰ>1}()
> ...
> }
That's confusing indeed. I'd rather keep { … } for blocks.
Now that's a matter of personal preference, but I find
the asymmetry of having a closing } without opening {
a bit ugly, and I suspect I won't be alone there. It also
annoyingly breaks pressing % to jump to a matching
curly.
I'd rather keep the new vim script as similar as the old
vim script language as possible, unless there is a very
good reason (e.g. performance boost). Cleaning
up the syntax for sometimes arbitrary personal
preference should be avoided. So I'd rather:
* keep opening curlies { ... }
* keep a: for argument prefixes
* keep let x = … instead of x = …
Many vim users never really learned vim script.
If there are 2 different vim scripts flavors for
unwarranted reasons, developers will be even
less likely to want to learn it.
Python2->Python3 and Perl5->Perl6 have shown that
trying to improve the syntax of the language can lead
to many problems lasting for years.
Regards
Dominique
--
--
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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/CAON-T_haaMXX6eK7-B_QxEAMxFzaLHJyYienwWGdHk2G%3DKbcMA%40mail.gmail.com.
