On 16/12/09 17:12, Tom Link wrote: [...] ... OK, so let s add a user s report. The only patch I use from that vim-dev list of semi-official patches is Bill
Message 1 of 9
, Jan 31, 2010
On 16/12/09 17:12, Tom Link wrote:
> Anyway, there seems to be no way to report success/failures with
> certain patches in a systematic manner that would allow Bram to get an
> adequate overview of how many people use a certain patch with which
> version (incl patch level) of vim and how many of those people
> experience problems that can be reproduced so that we know for sure
> that the problem is actually caused by the patch etc. Otherwise the
> patch authors (I didn't contribute a patch so this is just another
> "personal theory") probably get frustrated, they abandon vim, they
> stop maintaining their patches with the consequence that their patches
> are likely to quickly become unusable since the development of vim
OK, so let's add a user's report.
The only patch I use from that vim-dev list of semi-official patches is
Bill McCarthy's "extra float functions" patch. I've been using it
constantly in Huge Vim builds with GTK2/Gnome2 GUI ever since it was
published (which was more than a year ago) and I've had exactly zero
problems with it in all that time. Of course patches to eval.c apply
with a line-offset but that's strictly all. I believe it would be a
valuable addition to Vim (versions with +float, of course -- all this
patch's code is bracketed by #ifdef FEAT_FLOAT). This patch integrates
so "naturally" with Vim that when I use a float function in an :echo
statement (usually :echo printf(...)) at the command-line, I don't know
(unless I look into the help, of course) whether it's from Bill's set of
float functions, or from Bram's.
Also, if anyone has had any problems at all with this float-functions
patch, I haven't noticed any mention of it on the list.
P.S. Bill: a missing #ifdef FEAT_FLOAT around the lines concerning tan()
and tanh() at line 7807-after of eval.c 7.2.350 (line 7664-before /
7690-after at the time the patch was written) seems to imply that this
patch wouldn't compile in a build with +eval but -float. I don't see the
problem since "my" builds are either Huge (+eval +float) or Tiny (-eval).
It may seem weird to include a "floating-point patch" in a build
compiled with -float but one might want to compile several
differently-configured versions out of the same sources -- as I do but
not in a way to be hurt.
Dear Lord, observe this bended knee
This visage meek and humble,
And hear this confidential plea
Voiced in reverent mumble:
Give me Shylock, give me Fagin
But O God spare me Ronald Reagan!
-- Ansel Adams
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer.
We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.