On 2020-06-01, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > Gary Johnson wrote: > > On 2020-06-01, Gary Johnson wrote: > > On 2020-05-28, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > > Gary Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > I discovered that some of the functions present in ":help functions" > > > > were missing from ":help function-list". The attached patch: > > > > > > > > - Adds missing functions to ":help function-list". > > > > - Puts the ":help functions" list in alphabetical order. > > > > - Fixes some misspellings in doc/eval.txt. > > > > - Cleans up some inconsistencies in function-list. > > > > > > > > I didn't know exactly where to insert some of the functions into the > > > > function-list, so I took some reasonable guesses. > > > > > > > > The patch is based on Vim 8.2.834. > > > > > > Thanks. It's easy to forge to add a function in all three places. > > > Perhaps we should have a test for that. > > > > I've created a test, attached. It checks that all three lists > > contain the same set of functions and that the lists in > > src/evalfunc.c and doc/eval.txt are sorted. > > > > This is my first attempt at a test in the new format, so I thought > > I'd post it here before submitting a patch to see if anyone spotted > > anything I should change. > > > > Also, the test will fail until the original patch of this thread is > > applied and another patch to doc/eval.txt is applied as well. Or, > > if this test looks OK, I could just submit a new patch with > > everything included. > > Thanks! > > The test currently fails, as predicted. The error message doesn't give > much of a hint about what needs to be fixed: > > Found errors in Test_function_lists(): > function RunTheTest[39]..Test_function_lists line 59: difference at byte 2829 > function RunTheTest[39]..Test_function_lists line 77: difference at byte 2890 > > Would be nice to point to what's wrong. Ah, I see that an > Xfunctions.diff file is generated. Hmm, but "diff" might not be > available.
Yeah, but I don't know what to do about that. I suppose I could save the lists to Lists instead of files and do a rudimentary diff of two Lists. (Having Unix tools makes life so much easier.) > The sorting should be done without ignoring case? At least for a binary > search it should. The type of sorting seems to differ between lists. The global_functions in evalfunc.c seems to be sorted in ASCII or "C" order, which makes sense for source code, while the ":help functions" in eval.txt seems to be sorted in dictionary order, i.e., ignoring case, which is reasonable for documentation. I guess the latter depends on the expectations of the reader. I tried to follow what was already there, although that was inconsistent. I don't personally have a preference. 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/20200601205833.GD10889%40phoenix.
