On 02/02/09 02:55, Ben Schmidt wrote:
>> Right... it's not exactly the most standardized format out there.
> I agree. It's a mess.
>> Some parsers support quoted RHS, others don't. It wouldn't shock me
>> if some support heredocs, but for the ones that do, is "dosini" really
>> the best filetype name? DOS doesn't support heredocs AFAIR, and .ini
>> is used on other systems than DOS as an easily-parseable format...
>> Maybe "dosini.vim" should be moved to "ini.vim", since it is used on
>> non-dos systems? Is there any precedent for renaming a filetype?
> My memory matches yours regarding DOS, etc. I don't know of a precedent,
> for a name change but I think such a change would make sense in this
> case. It probably shouldn't have, but the .ini format has spread like a
> virus to all kinds of areas.
What about backwards compatibility? With, for instance, users having
~/.vim/after/ftplugin/dosini.vim (and/or syntax/dosini.vim,
indent/dosini.vim) or files with other extensions having ft=dosini in a
Or else, keep the existing dosini.vim scripts and define a new "ini"
filetype with different scripts, the detection (and identification of
which is which) being done maybe automatically (by inspecting the file's
contents) or maybe manually (by a global variable -- undefined would
mean keep the current behaviour)?
The new scripts could even source the old ones (and extend them) the way
cpp.vim does with c.vim
>> Well... how much harm is there in including it even if it isn't
>> supported? It would only affect people who assign a variable a value
>> matching /<<\(\I\i*\)/ - wouldn't it be safe to assume that no one
>> would do that unless they knew the file would be parsed by something
>> supporting heredocs?
> I think so.
or those who include that kind of text in a comment?
The streets are safe in Philadelphia, it's only the people who make
-- Mayor Frank Rizzo
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php