On Thu, April 12, 2012 15:19, Boyko Bantchev wrote: > On 12 April 2012 09:30, Christian Brabandt <[email protected]> wrote: >> If I recall correctly, it's more than a year ago, that I provided the >> patch: >> ......... >> I wouldn't call that recent anymore ;) > > Your version of digraph.txt is not in the compiled versions of Vim > distributed from vim.org. It is not even in the source packages for > those who would compile Vim themselves.
It is. I provided the patch and Bram committed it to the runtime files that you can find at at the help :h digraph-table-mbyte and online at http://code.google.com/p/vim/source/browse/runtime/doc/digraph.txt (which was after 7.3.115 and before 7.3.116, see also the Last change line from January 15th, 2011). > So long as it is not in the current Vim distributions, this version > of digraph.txt is by no means representative of Vim. It is still > ineffective. Had you not mentioned it, I wouldn't even know it > existed. How would I? Because it is in the official runtime files. > Now, I did not intend to make a big deal of all this, but saying that > digraph.txt contains all digraph definitions, as was the case, is > simply misleading, because it appears to not be true for almost all > users of Vim. > […] > What can be found is ×, but /\, as I said, is missing. Also missing Which happens to produce the same glyph (it just uses a different set of characters to create them). > are c|, cO, n~, etc. – perhaps all those at the end of :digraph's > output. As long as they are effective in Vim, it is worth listing > them, too, in digraph.txt (under 'legacy' or whatever). Please don't understand me wrong but I am getting tired of discussing this. If you miss the old legacy digraphs back from the Vim 5 days (that do not conform to RFC1345), feel free to submit a documentation patch. regards, Christian -- 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
