I can only really provide insight for the first point you made:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:59:13AM -0800, Dave Land wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> While we're on the topic of java.vim, I noticed two things that seemed
> to me to be bugs, but it is likely that I haven't considered the
> myriad consequences of the following:
>
> 1) On line 49 of ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim/runtime/syntax/java.vim,
> "String" is not included in the list of javaTypes. I added it locally
> and haven't seen any ill effects, but wonder if this is wise.
I think that this is probably done intentionally, since String isn't
really a basic type of java, but an Object. There is support for
highlighting object types with a different file, javaid.vim, as far as
I know, which can be found at:
http://www.fleiner.com/vim/syntax_60/javaid.vim
To me, it doesn't make sense to highlight the String class the same
way as a basic type, but it may just be my personal taste. I know
other IDE's I've used don't highlight String the same as something
like an int or double.
HTH,
Matthew
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
