Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Vim 6.0r alpha available

Expand Messages
  • Bram Moolenaar
    ... Thanks, I ll include this patch. -- Did you ever see a Hit any key to continue message in a music piece? /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@moolenaar.net --
    Message 1 of 25 , Jan 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:

      > It doesn't compile with +eval and without +crypt. Quick patch attached.

      Thanks, I'll include this patch.

      --
      Did you ever see a "Hit any key to continue" message in a music piece?

      /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
      ((( Creator of Vim - http://www.vim.org -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
      \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
    • Johannes Zellner
      ... no this doesn t work. This boils down to: inoremap =TabFun() fun! TabFun() return endfun I tried multiple approaches with this and
      Message 2 of 25 , Jan 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 09:53:43AM +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
        > Johannes Zellner wrote:
        > >
        > > On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 08:52:01PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
        > > > Evaluate 'includeexpr' and 'statusline' in the sandbox, for extra safety.
        > >
        > > this breaks my /beautiful/ KeyPressedHandler()
        > >
        > > fun! KeyPressedHandler()
        > > let m = mode()
        > > if 'i' != m && 'R' != m
        > > return ''
        > > endif
        > > let col = col('.') - 1
        > > if !col || getline('.')[col - 1] !~ '\k'
        > > if '' != mapcheck('<tab>', 'i')
        > > iunmap <tab>
        > > endif
        > > elseif '' == mapcheck('<tab>', 'i')
        > > imap <tab> <c-p>
        > > endif
        > > if '' != mapcheck('<tab>', 'i')
        > > return '<complete>'
        > > else
        > > return '<tab>'
        > > endif
        > > endfun
        > >
        > > set statusline=%<[%n]%f%y%r%1*%m%*%w%4(%)%2*%{KeyPressedHandler()}%*%=%(C\ %c%V%)%4(%)%-10(L\ %l(%L)%)%4(%)%p%%
        > >
        > > :-(
        > >
        > > as 'imap' and iunmap are not allowed in a 'sandbox'.
        > > Does anyone have any idea how I could get back the
        > > functionality of this handler:
        > >
        > > - <tab> works like ins-complete, if the cursor is behind a keyword char.
        > > - <tab> just inserts a tab, if the cursor is behind anything else.
        >
        > An idea :
        > Make KeyPressedHandler just return the string <complete> or <tab> and
        > store it in a variable g:keypressedhandlerstatus. Map <tab> to a small
        > function that checks the value of g:keypressedhandlerstatus and that
        > does <c-p> or the regular <tab> depending on this value.

        no this doesn't work. This boils down to:

        inoremap <tab> <c-r>=TabFun()<cr>
        fun! TabFun()
        return "\<c-p>"
        endfun

        I tried multiple approaches with this and figured out that it
        can't work, because the ins-completion interferes with the <cr>.
        Actually it will work when hitting the first time <tab> (and
        TabFun() returns <c-p>), but hitting the second time <tab>
        (in a row) the <c-p> as returned by TabFun() won't trigger
        the next match.

        --
        Johannes
      • Johannes Zellner
        ... yes, I m aware that I misused the stl. But it worked like a charm. ... [...] I wouldn t make it too complicated (although I d /really/ like to get get my
        Message 3 of 25 , Jan 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 11:28:26AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
          >
          > Johannes Zellner wrote:
          >
          > > On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 08:52:01PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
          > > > Evaluate 'includeexpr' and 'statusline' in the sandbox, for extra safety.
          > >
          > > this breaks my /beautiful/ KeyPressedHandler()
          > [...]
          > > as 'imap' and iunmap are not allowed in a 'sandbox'.
          > > Does anyone have any idea how I could get back the
          > > functionality of this handler:
          > >
          > > - <tab> works like ins-complete, if the cursor is behind a keyword char.
          > > - <tab> just inserts a tab, if the cursor is behind anything else.
          >
          > Hmm, you are using the fact that the custom statusline is redrawn after each
          > typed character. It works, although it wasn't really intended for this.

          yes, I'm aware that I misused the stl. But it worked like a charm.

          > We could add an autocommand that gets triggered after each inserted character.
          > It would cause a lot of overhead though, mostly because we need to match the
          > pattern with the file name. That could be reduced by only doing it for
          > a specific buffer.
          [...]

          I wouldn't make it too complicated (although I'd /really/ like
          to get get my old behaviour back -- it's really convenient IMHO).

          Apparently, there are alreay autocommands which trigger on ft
          instead of a file extension (FileType). So the third part of
          `autocmd' is not consistent between autocommand types anyway.
          The question is, what the third part of the KeyPressed autocmd
          should specify (extension or filetype ?). As I understand you
          this could make the autocommand slow. But I guess a simple '*'
          must be fast, because one can immediately say that it matches
          all buffers (which will be the common case, I guess).

          so:

          au KeyPressed * ...

          shouldn't be slow, isn't it ? -- And the syntax is the same
          as for all other autocommands!

          I would prefer this solution over allowing again imap in
          stl, because the way I used stl was a dirty trick, but
          a KeyPressed autocmd is a clean solution.

          --
          Johannes
        • Bram Moolenaar
          ... That s true. But it doesn t apply here. Suppose we add a CharInserted ... Thus the pattern would be useful here. But might be slow, because the
          Message 4 of 25 , Jan 2, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Johannes Zellner wrote:

            > Apparently, there are alreay autocommands which trigger on ft
            > instead of a file extension (FileType). So the third part of
            > `autocmd' is not consistent between autocommand types anyway.

            That's true. But it doesn't apply here. Suppose we add a "CharInserted"
            event, then you might want to do:

            :au CharInserted *.[ch] do-something

            Thus the pattern would be useful here. But might be slow, because the pattern
            has to be matched against the file name for every typed character..

            > The question is, what the third part of the KeyPressed autocmd
            > should specify (extension or filetype ?). As I understand you
            > this could make the autocommand slow. But I guess a simple '*'
            > must be fast, because one can immediately say that it matches
            > all buffers (which will be the common case, I guess).

            It's also slow because the regexp has to be compiled, functions called, memory
            allocated and freed... Even when there is no autocommand defined there is
            some overhead, but that should be minimal.

            When defining a buffer-local autocommand, the pattern could be simply ignored.
            That should speed up things a bit. In fact, we could replace the pattern with
            "<buffer>" to specify a buffer-local autocommand:

            :au CharInserted <buffer> ...

            Doesn't look to bad, does it?

            > so:
            >
            > au KeyPressed * ...
            >
            > shouldn't be slow, isn't it ? -- And the syntax is the same
            > as for all other autocommands!

            Yes, but there are many places where a key press would need to be checked for,
            thus creating overhead (and a bigger executable). I would like to keep this
            down to a minimum. Also because autocommands can have nasty side effects,
            which need to be checked for (can you imagine an autocommand closing the
            window while in the middle of inserting some text?).

            > I would prefer this solution over allowing again imap in
            > stl, because the way I used stl was a dirty trick, but
            > a KeyPressed autocmd is a clean solution.

            "KeyPressed" sounds a bit too generic. For your purpose you would need a
            "CharInserted" event. Although a "TextChanged" event could also be used. All
            this isn't easy to implement though, mostly because there isn't a single place
            where the event can be triggered, and it's deep down in code that might suffer
            from the side effects of executing the autocommand. The implementation will
            restrict the type of events that can be triggered.

            --
            Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.

            /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
            ((( Creator of Vim - http://www.vim.org -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
            \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
          • Ron Aaron
            ... I would go for this solution, as it is clean. Look at the FuncUndefined autocommand -- it also ignores the pattern, and fires if a func called is
            Message 5 of 25 , Jan 2, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Johannes Zellner <johannes@...> writes:
              >On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 11:28:26AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
              >> We could add an autocommand that gets triggered after each inserted character.
              >> It would cause a lot of overhead though, mostly because we need to match the
              >> pattern with the file name. That could be reduced by only doing it for
              >> a specific buffer.
              >The question is, what the third part of the KeyPressed autocmd
              >should specify (extension or filetype ?). As I understand you
              >this could make the autocommand slow. But I guess a simple '*'
              >must be fast, because one can immediately say that it matches
              >all buffers (which will be the common case, I guess).
              >
              >so:
              >
              > au KeyPressed * ...
              >
              >shouldn't be slow, isn't it ? -- And the syntax is the same
              >as for all other autocommands!

              I would go for this solution, as it is clean. Look at the FuncUndefined
              autocommand -- it also ignores the pattern, and fires if a func called is
              undefined whatever buffer happens to be loaded. So too with the KeyPressed,
              one should just fire off if it exists (and it can be ignored if requested via
              'eventignore').

              Running a command on each keypress might indeed be slow, but if a person
              decides to do that, so be it! I would, BTW, make it something like:

              au KeyPressed * OnKeyPressed

              so the OnKeyPressed function just gets called, and has the form:


              func OnKeyPressed(incoming_key)
              return modified_key
              endfunc

              so if the user wants to munge the keys in a more complicated way than maps can
              do, s/he can do so...

              Regards,

              Ron
            • Benji Fisher
              ... [snip] ... I do not have any suggestions for making it faster or more robust, but I would like to put in a weak vote in favor of adding some such
              Message 6 of 25 , Jan 2, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                >
                > Johannes Zellner wrote:
                >
                > > Apparently, there are alreay autocommands which trigger on ft
                > > instead of a file extension (FileType). So the third part of
                > > `autocmd' is not consistent between autocommand types anyway.
                >
                > That's true. But it doesn't apply here. Suppose we add a "CharInserted"
                > event, then you might want to do:
                >
                > :au CharInserted *.[ch] do-something
                >
                > Thus the pattern would be useful here. But might be slow, because the pattern
                > has to be matched against the file name for every typed character..
                >
                [snip]
                >
                > "KeyPressed" sounds a bit too generic. For your purpose you would need a
                > "CharInserted" event. Although a "TextChanged" event could also be used. All
                > this isn't easy to implement though, mostly because there isn't a single place
                > where the event can be triggered, and it's deep down in code that might suffer
                > from the side effects of executing the autocommand. The implementation will
                > restrict the type of events that can be triggered.

                I do not have any suggestions for making it faster or more robust,
                but I would like to put in a weak vote in favor of adding some such
                autocommand. You see, some folks actually use the word_complete.vim
                script that I wrote a while ago. Basically, this invokes <C-P>
                automatically and leaves the added characters in Select mode, so they can
                be removed by further typing. This script would be a lot easier to write,
                and work better, if I could use a CharInserted autocommand instead of a
                bunch of :imaps.

                On the subject of new autocommand events, am I the only one who would
                like to have a way to do something every time a variable (global or
                buffer, say) is modified? (Have a look at my matchit.vim script and see
                how much processing is done each time you press %!)

                --Benji Fisher
              • Zdenek Sekera
                ... I d use it, too. And right now. ... Quite right, it is impressive and really fast, too. By the way, I can see the usefullnes of CharInserted or
                Message 7 of 25 , Jan 2, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Benji Fisher wrote:
                  >
                  ...
                  > On the subject of new autocommand events, am I the only one who would
                  > like to have a way to do something every time a variable (global or
                  > buffer, say) is modified?

                  I'd use it, too. And right now.

                  > (Have a look at my matchit.vim script and see
                  > how much processing is done each time you press %!)

                  Quite right, it is impressive and really fast, too.

                  By the way, I can see the usefullnes of 'CharInserted' or 'KeyPressed'
                  event as well.

                  ---Zdenek
                • Bram Moolenaar
                  ... We need to be more specific about when this event would be triggered. Does it need to be local to a buffer? Is it also triggered after an :imap was
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jan 2, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Benji Fisher wrote:

                    > I do not have any suggestions for making it faster or more robust,
                    > but I would like to put in a weak vote in favor of adding some such
                    > autocommand. You see, some folks actually use the word_complete.vim
                    > script that I wrote a while ago. Basically, this invokes <C-P>
                    > automatically and leaves the added characters in Select mode, so they can
                    > be removed by further typing. This script would be a lot easier to write,
                    > and work better, if I could use a CharInserted autocommand instead of a
                    > bunch of :imaps.

                    We need to be more specific about when this event would be triggered. Does it
                    need to be local to a buffer? Is it also triggered after an ":imap" was
                    expanded? Or perhaps for every character that an ":imap" inserted? Perhaps
                    it's sufficient to trigger the event when the user typed the character and not
                    when it's the result of some mapping or script?

                    These details matter a lot when you are actually going to use the event. I
                    want to know in advance how it would need to work, so that I can estimate how
                    much work it would be to implement.

                    > On the subject of new autocommand events, am I the only one who would
                    > like to have a way to do something every time a variable (global or
                    > buffer, say) is modified? (Have a look at my matchit.vim script and see
                    > how much processing is done each time you press %!)

                    How much processing do you want to do when any other command is executed that
                    uses (global/buffer) variables?

                    --
                    Wizards had always known that the act of observation changed the thing that
                    was observed, and sometimes forgot that it also changed the observer too.
                    Terry Pratchett - Interesting times

                    /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
                    ((( Creator of Vim - http://www.vim.org -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
                    \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
                  • Benji Fisher
                    ... I am willing to go with whatever option is easiest to implement and most efficient. If you want my preferences, a local-to-buffer option would be nice,
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jan 2, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                      >
                      > Benji Fisher wrote:
                      >
                      > > I do not have any suggestions for making it faster or more robust,
                      > > but I would like to put in a weak vote in favor of adding some such
                      > > autocommand. You see, some folks actually use the word_complete.vim
                      > > script that I wrote a while ago. Basically, this invokes <C-P>
                      > > automatically and leaves the added characters in Select mode, so they can
                      > > be removed by further typing. This script would be a lot easier to write,
                      > > and work better, if I could use a CharInserted autocommand instead of a
                      > > bunch of :imaps.
                      >
                      > We need to be more specific about when this event would be triggered. Does it
                      > need to be local to a buffer? Is it also triggered after an ":imap" was
                      > expanded? Or perhaps for every character that an ":imap" inserted? Perhaps
                      > it's sufficient to trigger the event when the user typed the character and not
                      > when it's the result of some mapping or script?
                      >
                      > These details matter a lot when you are actually going to use the event. I
                      > want to know in advance how it would need to work, so that I can estimate how
                      > much work it would be to implement.
                      >
                      > > On the subject of new autocommand events, am I the only one who would
                      > > like to have a way to do something every time a variable (global or
                      > > buffer, say) is modified? (Have a look at my matchit.vim script and see
                      > > how much processing is done each time you press %!)
                      >
                      > How much processing do you want to do when any other command is executed that
                      > uses (global/buffer) variables?

                      I am willing to go with whatever option is easiest to implement and
                      most efficient. If you want my preferences, a local-to-buffer option
                      would be nice, and a CharacterActuallyTypedByUser event would be
                      preferable to a CharacterInsertedByAnyMeans event. ;)

                      I am not sure I understand your last question. Are you suggesting
                      that a GlobalVariableTwiddled autocommand event would involve too much
                      overhead, since it would be triggered every time a script accessed a
                      global variable? If so, I can see your point. OTOH, as a writer of vim
                      scripts, I prefer to use local variables as much as possible anyway, so I
                      do not often use global ones. From the same point of view, I envy writers
                      of vim internals, who can get the same effect that I want whenever the
                      user changes an option.

                      This may be a very big can of worms, but another option would be to
                      allow user-defined options, in addition to user-defined global variables.
                      Allow autocommands to be triggered when these options are changed. This
                      would solve the problem of overhead, since the autocommands would not have
                      to be checked when regular variables were changed.

                      --Benji Fisher
                    • Bram Moolenaar
                      ... Since a user only types so many characters per second, it s not too bad to have some extra processing per character. Making this local to a buffer will
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jan 3, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Benji Fisher wrote:

                        > I am willing to go with whatever option is easiest to implement and
                        > most efficient. If you want my preferences, a local-to-buffer option
                        > would be nice, and a CharacterActuallyTypedByUser event would be
                        > preferable to a CharacterInsertedByAnyMeans event. ;)

                        Since a user only types so many characters per second, it's not too bad to
                        have some extra processing per character. Making this local to a buffer will
                        further reduce the need to do regexp stuff. You could always define it for
                        every buffer opened with an autocommand that installs the buffer-local
                        autocommand, if you really need that.

                        Now, when would the event need to be triggered? After typing a character that
                        is inserted in the text? Before or after the character is inserted? If it's
                        before, you might want to change the inserted character. That could be done
                        with a Vim variable, which you can change. That sounds simple enough.

                        > I am not sure I understand your last question. Are you suggesting
                        > that a GlobalVariableTwiddled autocommand event would involve too much
                        > overhead, since it would be triggered every time a script accessed a
                        > global variable? If so, I can see your point. OTOH, as a writer of vim
                        > scripts, I prefer to use local variables as much as possible anyway, so I
                        > do not often use global ones. From the same point of view, I envy writers
                        > of vim internals, who can get the same effect that I want whenever the
                        > user changes an option.

                        Well, some scripts might want to use global variables anyway. And when there
                        is an autocommand for changing a global variable, it's a matter of time before
                        someone asks for an event on script variables.

                        Actually, it's not clear to me why you would want to do something when a
                        global variable is changed.

                        > This may be a very big can of worms, but another option would be to
                        > allow user-defined options, in addition to user-defined global variables.
                        > Allow autocommands to be triggered when these options are changed. This
                        > would solve the problem of overhead, since the autocommands would not have
                        > to be checked when regular variables were changed.

                        I don't intend to add user-defined options. Global variables do the same
                        thing.

                        --
                        hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
                        194. Your business cards contain your e-mail and home page address.

                        /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
                        ((( Creator of Vim - http://www.vim.org -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
                        \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
                      • Dr. Charles E. Campbell
                        ... A fast touch-typist can do 120 words per minute, where each word has an average of 5 characters (which works out to about ten characters per second).
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jan 3, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Thus saith Bram Moolenaar:
                          > Since a user only types so many characters per second, it's not too bad to
                          > have some extra processing per character.

                          A fast touch-typist can do 120 "words" per minute, where each word has
                          an average of 5 characters (which works out to about ten characters per
                          second). Just a rule of thumb; the problem with adding keystroke
                          overhead is testing, because not everyone types at the same speed (and
                          individual speeds vary depending on the typing task).

                          With that said, I doubt there's much problem with this; syntax
                          highlighting undoubtedly slows things down rather more than the
                          autocmd-event check would involve. Of course, one can disable syntax
                          highlighting when that becomes a problem.

                          Regards,
                          C Campbell

                          --
                          Charles E Campbell, Jr, PhD _ __ __
                          Goddard Space Flight Center / /_/\_\_/ /
                          cec@... /_/ \/_//_/
                          PGP public key: http://www.erols.com/astronaut/pgp.html/
                        • Nils Lohner
                          In message , Dr. Charles E. C ... How about a mouse cut-and-paste? That looks like very fast typing, right?
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jan 3, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In message <200101031453.f03Er1g26256@...>, "Dr.
                            Charles E. C
                            ampbell" writes:
                            >Thus saith Bram Moolenaar:
                            >> Since a user only types so many characters per second, it's not too bad to
                            >> have some extra processing per character.
                            >
                            >A fast touch-typist can do 120 "words" per minute, where each word has
                            >an average of 5 characters (which works out to about ten characters per
                            >second). Just a rule of thumb; the problem with adding keystroke
                            >overhead is testing, because not everyone types at the same speed (and
                            >individual speeds vary depending on the typing task).
                            >

                            How about a mouse cut-and-paste? That looks like very fast typing,
                            right?

                            Nils.
                          • Dr. Charles E. Campbell
                            ... Yes, I imagine it does, and generally that can be considerably faster than mere human speeds. Should that fall into CharacterActuallyTypedByUser or
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jan 3, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thus saith Nils Lohner:
                              > How about a mouse cut-and-paste? That looks like very fast typing,
                              > right?

                              Yes, I imagine it does, and generally that can be considerably faster
                              than mere human speeds. Should that fall into
                              "CharacterActuallyTypedByUser" or "CharacterInsertedByAnyMeans", Benji?
                              Can the difference be detected?

                              Regards,
                              C Campbell

                              --
                              Charles E Campbell, Jr, PhD _ __ __
                              Goddard Space Flight Center / /_/\_\_/ /
                              cec@... /_/ \/_//_/
                              PGP public key: http://www.erols.com/astronaut/pgp.html/
                            • Bram Moolenaar
                              ... If you have the mouse disabled, or are using a terminal where the mouse doesn t work inside Vim, pasting text arrives in Vim as if it was typed. This is
                              Message 14 of 25 , Jan 3, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Charles Campbell wrote:

                                > Thus saith Nils Lohner:
                                > > How about a mouse cut-and-paste? That looks like very fast typing,
                                > > right?
                                >
                                > Yes, I imagine it does, and generally that can be considerably faster
                                > than mere human speeds. Should that fall into
                                > "CharacterActuallyTypedByUser" or "CharacterInsertedByAnyMeans", Benji?
                                > Can the difference be detected?

                                If you have the mouse disabled, or are using a terminal where the mouse
                                doesn't work inside Vim, pasting text arrives in Vim as if it was typed. This
                                is indeed a very fast way of typing. It's a good reason to use the mouse in
                                Vim, if possible. And make those InsertChar autocommands really fast.

                                --
                                panic("Foooooooood fight!");
                                -- In the kernel source aha1542.c, after detecting a bad segment list

                                /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
                                ((( Creator of Vim - http://www.vim.org -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
                                \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
                              • Johannes Zellner
                                On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:40:29PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: [...] ... [...] what about disabling InsertChar if paste is on ? -- Johannes
                                Message 15 of 25 , Jan 3, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:40:29PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                                  [...]
                                  > If you have the mouse disabled, or are using a terminal where the mouse
                                  > doesn't work inside Vim, pasting text arrives in Vim as if it was typed. This
                                  > is indeed a very fast way of typing. It's a good reason to use the mouse in
                                  > Vim, if possible. And make those InsertChar autocommands really fast.
                                  [...]

                                  what about disabling InsertChar if 'paste' is on ?

                                  --
                                  Johannes
                                • Bram Moolenaar
                                  ... That s a good idea. -- hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict: 213. Your kids start referring to you as that guy in front of the monitor.
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Jan 3, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Johannes Zellner wrote:

                                    > On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:40:29PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                                    > [...]
                                    > > If you have the mouse disabled, or are using a terminal where the mouse
                                    > > doesn't work inside Vim, pasting text arrives in Vim as if it was typed.
                                    > > This is indeed a very fast way of typing. It's a good reason to use the
                                    > > mouse in Vim, if possible. And make those InsertChar autocommands really
                                    > > fast.
                                    > [...]
                                    >
                                    > what about disabling InsertChar if 'paste' is on ?

                                    That's a good idea.

                                    --
                                    hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
                                    213. Your kids start referring to you as "that guy in front of the monitor."

                                    /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
                                    ((( Creator of Vim - http://www.vim.org -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
                                    \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
                                  • Paul Moore
                                    From: Bram@moolenaar.net [mailto:Bram@moolenaar.net] ... (butting in here, sorry...) Er, I think that s exactly the point. The one thing you can do with an
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Jan 4, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      From: Bram@... [mailto:Bram@...]
                                      > Actually, it's not clear to me why you would want to
                                      > do something when a global variable is changed.
                                      >
                                      > > This may be a very big can of worms, but another
                                      > > option would be to allow user-defined options, in
                                      > > addition to user-defined global variables. Allow
                                      > > autocommands to be triggered when these options are
                                      > > changed. This would solve the problem of overhead,
                                      > > since the autocommands would not have to be checked
                                      > > when regular variables were changed.
                                      >
                                      > I don't intend to add user-defined options. Global
                                      > variables do the same thing.

                                      (butting in here, sorry...)
                                      Er, I think that's exactly the point. The one thing you can do with an
                                      option which you can't do with a global variable, is to have extra effects
                                      take place when the option is changed. With a GlobalChanged autocommand, you
                                      would indeed be able to get the effect of an option with a global variable.

                                      (I don't have a use for user-defined options myself, I just thought this
                                      point was worth clarifying...)

                                      Paul.
                                    • Bram Moolenaar
                                      ... Ehm, you can t have extra effects when setting an option, as far as I know. I hope you understand that adding an autocommand event has the potential of
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Jan 5, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Paul Moore wrote:

                                        > > I don't intend to add user-defined options. Global variables do the same
                                        > > thing.
                                        >
                                        > (butting in here, sorry...)
                                        > Er, I think that's exactly the point. The one thing you can do with an
                                        > option which you can't do with a global variable, is to have extra effects
                                        > take place when the option is changed. With a GlobalChanged autocommand, you
                                        > would indeed be able to get the effect of an option with a global variable.
                                        >
                                        > (I don't have a use for user-defined options myself, I just thought this
                                        > point was worth clarifying...)

                                        Ehm, you can't have "extra effects" when setting an option, as far as I know.

                                        I hope you understand that adding an autocommand event has the potential of
                                        introducing many new problems. Mostly because of the side effects an
                                        autocommand can have (well, it can do _anything_). You don't want a ":let
                                        g:var = value" command have unpredictable side effects, do you?

                                        --
                                        hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
                                        256. You are able to write down over 250 symptoms of being an internet
                                        addict, even though they only asked for 101.

                                        /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
                                        ((( Creator of Vim - http://www.vim.org -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
                                        \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.