RE: [PATCH] Folding out patterns synchronised with 6.1.263
- On 23 Nov 2002, 06:54 Nazri Ramliy wrote:
>It would be logical, though, to make use of as much of the existing
> I guess the next natural "YAO" request would be:
> Conceal all those completely concealed lines :),
> 'concealline=true/false' maybe?
> Bear in mind that this is not folding.
folding infrastructure as possible. Someone else on this list already
requested an option to make folded lines take up no space (i.e. have
no foldline displayed in their stead, and the two requests have a lot
I did play with this a bit to see if it was simple to have zero-length
folds; the answer is, it's not simple but I think it's doable. The
situation is analogous to when zero-height windows were made possible
- the basic display is easy, but the devil was finding and sorting out
all the places in the code which assumed that windows were at least 1
line high. The same thing will apply here, I think.
> I'm aware that this would have its own issues: whether to reveal theI would say that if one wants to see the lines as you move through
> line(s) as the cursor moves up/down through them, which may lead to
> YAYAO ;)
them, you use a manual fold. If lines are folded to zero, you want the
cursor to move over them as if they weren't there.
>This is exactly the application suggested by the user who wanted
> Example usage:
> Having this feature would make it possible to completely hide those
> not-so-interesting lines (think lines containing root.exe and cmd.exe
> in your access_log files, for example, bad nimda! BTW), while at the
> same time having VIM's syntax highlighting in all its glory :)
zero-height folds. The overall effect is like "selective view" in
> While I'm at it, here's another thought: sometimes maybe we forgetIn the existing version of "conceal" it's fairly obvious even with
> that we had this conceal option set somewhere in some .rc file,
> presenting the possibility of us thinking that there's no text there
> when in fact there is, but concealed.. so maybe a good feature to have
> is to have sort of a 'red light' that warns us that there are totally
> hidden characters/lines in the current buffer, maybe on the statusline
> '[CONCEAL]', or maybe just before the ':' at the ex-command line like
> [CONCEAL]:ex commands go here
> so that we maybe we want to change 'conceallevel' to 1 for a while to
> refresh our memory of what was it that we set hidden in this buffer.
conceallevel=2 that something's hidden, since you get blank lines.
Certainly if one were able to completely hide lines, then you would
need some indication. However, the statusline is not always visible
and the showcmd area is not the right place for such notification.
If I recall correctly, the user who first suggested zero-length folds
also suggested that when enabled, the "foldcolumn" was always visible.
Then a symbol could be placed in the foldcolumn at the line
immediately after the hidden lines. This seems logical (and more
helpful than a blanket "[CONCEAL]" indicator) and also fits in with
the overall idea of re-using the folding engine.
I think that zero-height folds are the first stage here, and these can
be implemented orthogonally to 'conceal'. Anyone who's interested can
contact me off-list and I'll point them at where they might start.
(note I'm off for the rest of today and Tuesday though.)
Vince Negri (vnegri@...) The Man with no Mouse
Quiet please. Software dept asleep.
Legal Disclaimer: Any views expressed by the sender of this message are
not necessarily those of Application Solutions Ltd. Information in this
e-mail may be confidential and is for the use of the intended recipient
only, no mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise such
privilege. Please advise the sender if you receive this e-mail by mistake.