On 12 Abr, 16:40, Gary Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2010-04-12, esquifit wrote: > > On 12 Abr, 08:00, Gary Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2010-04-11, esquifit wrote: > > > > I'm using gVim under Windows XP and set cygwin's bash to be the shell > > > > enviroment for gVim. > > > > [...] > > > > > In other words, seems that system correctly expects cygwin syntax > > > > but filereadable() still expects Windows native paths. > > > > > Is this an inconsistency, or am I missing some obvious point? Is there > > > > any better way to deal with this situation? > > > > What you're missing is that the Vim you're using interfaces with the > > > Windows OS primarily via the Windows OS API, which expects > > > Windows-style path names, whereas the system() call uses the shell > > > to interface with the OS, and you've specified Cygwin bash as your > > > 'shell', which expects Cygwin's Unix-style path names. > > > > If you use a Windows gvim and a Cygwin shell, you have to manage > > > these path name differences. A number of people on this list have > > > come up with partial solutions but none of them have worked > > > seamlessly enough to suit me. My solution is to use a Cygwin vim in > > > a terminal when I need to use Vim with Cygwin tools and to use a > > > Windows gvim when I need to use Vim with Windows tools. > > Thank you for your swift reply. The point you explain below, namely > > that filereadable() is part of the interface with the underlying OS > > and that system() talks to the configured shell, was already apparent > > to me. What I wanted to know was whether this was "intentional" or > > not. Â I understand that there is a natural logic in it, on the other > > hand it leads to asymmetric situations like the one I described. I can > > live with a workaround though. :) > > Maybe I still don't understand the question then. Â It's only > asymmetric in your case because you made it so by specifying a > Cygwin shell. Â I guess it's intentional that Vim allows > customization to the point that the user can create odd situations > for himself if he so chooses. > > > Regarding the suggestion of using cygwin vim in a terminal, I'd love > > being able to do it, but unfortunately the (binary) cygwin > > distribution of vim lacks a number of features (present on gVim) which > > I absolutely need, and I don't have currently the knowledge nor the > > time to attempt to understand how to compile my own version. > > I understand the time concern. Â It's pretty easy to do, though, > whether you use the source from Cygwin or from Vim's Mercurial > repository. Â The only tricky part I found was getting the right > development libraries for the dependencies. Â Just let us know if you > want to try. > > Also, the convention on this list is to bottom-post. > > Regards, > Gary
Yes, you're right. I first expected being able to pass the same string representing a file path to functions like filereadable() and system(), but I now understand that both functions are actually different creatures. As for how to compile vim in cygwing, thanks to both you and pansz for the suggestion and offered support. I'm also reluctant to install gcc and a bunch of other programs and libraries only for this. My computer is provided by my employer and I want to keep "non-compliant" software to a minimum, with deviations only where this means a clear productivity gain. So, it is not only the time factor what prevents me from doing it. Thanks also for the hint about posting at the bottom, I should have noticed it by myself. cheers e. -- You received this message from the "vim_use" 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 To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
