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.) We probably should make assert_equalfile() better. Show the context of where the difference was found. However, in this case the question is also where the list comes from, that could be added as a third argument. > > 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. In case of doubt I would prefer to do what ":sort" without arguments ends up with. It's just easier to maintain that way. -- hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict: 252. You vote for foreign officials. /// 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/202006012107.051L7jCM081986%40masaka.moolenaar.net.
