Alejandro Hernandez wrote: > Testing plugins in isolation is frequently done. Under the current > system, all > plugins one wants to test have to be moved under `opt` to be able to > use `:packadd`. Relying on `:runtime` is both error-prone and > cumbersome. There's no need for the user to replicate `:packadd` > functionality using `:runtime`, because there are things one needs to > take into account (sourcing all plugin files, adding to runtimepath), > which would be better done by `:packadd`. > > I propose changing `:packadd` behavior to load ANY plugin, whether > it's in `opt` or `start`, defaulting to doing nothing if it was added > already. This idempotent and least-surprise behavior is what I > expected from `:packadd` before I read the documentation. > > Adding an argument to `:packadd` is also fine, although a bit more > "surpriseful".
That is a reasonable request. If the "start" packages were not loaded then :packadd can also look there. -- hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict: 114. You are counting items, you go "0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D...". /// 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_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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
