On Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:06:14 AM UTC-5, Boyko Bantchev wrote: > >> 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 > > No it isn't, effectively. It is nowhere in the exe or src packages > on http://www.vim.org/download.php or http://www.vim.org/sources.php, > which are what almost all users of Vim use. To all of them, including > me, digraph.txt only lists a small portion of the available digraphs. > We would not even suspect the existence of a newer version of anything > (let alone use it) until it comes with an official package that can be > run on our systems. >
>From vim.org/sources.php: "The preferred way is to use Mercurial. You can easily get the latest version with all the patches, or go back to an older version if you need to." So I disagree that "almost all" users who build Vim from source would necessarily use the outdated archives available for direct download. As for user who get Vim in executable binary form, I'd bet that "almost all" of such users on a Linux platform will get Vim through their package manager, which will be more recent than the direct downloads, even if it's not the MOST recent version. For Windows users, it is true that the latest *official* version available in installer form is 7.3.46. However, just below the download link, it says "For the latest version with all patches included see Cream below", where "Cream" links eventually to http://sourceforge.net/projects/cream/files/Vim/ . This is the recommended place to get a Vim installer. -- 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
