RE: Re(2): VimRegEx.vim beta
- Which is exactly why it surprised me that it was so. I mean, backward
compatibility is one thing, but braindead is another. Shall we hie back to
the days of Hollerith just in case someone has a pack of punch cards?
Somewhere along the line 'enough is enough'. When it comes to the point
that everybody's plugin has to include saveCPO and restore it just for the
sake of not violating the fact that the original vi didn't have line
continuation... After all, how many people who use vi compatible would
really be outraged if line continuation were allowed? And anyway, it would
seem that they are probably the minority so shouldn't they be the ones to
Somewhere along the line every mother has to cut the cord. You can't drag
the baby around by it forever.
*** -----Original Message-----
*** From: Antoine J. Mechelynck [mailto:antoine.mechelynck@...]
*** Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 4:23 AM
*** To: vim users' list; Antony Scriven
*** Subject: Re: Re(2): VimRegEx.vim beta
*** Antony Scriven <adscriven@...> wrote:
*** > Antoine Mechelynck wrote:
*** > > [...]
*** > >
*** > > C in &cpo means [...] prohibiting line continuation
*** > > in scripts, I don't understand the purpose.
*** > :help line-continuation
*** > /append
*** > explains it.
*** > Antony
*** Yeah, sure; but it also explains there that when using it you should
*** temporary set C in &cpo. I mean: line continuation looks to me
*** so useful
*** that it seems to me a braindead thing to do to disable it by default.