Re: a few bugs with gvim-7.
- Gautam Iyer wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:15:32PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:I think there are people who do. You can use underline for syntax
> > > Ok, so I *finally* loaded the gui version of vim and found the following
> > > bugs with syntax highlighting:
> > >
> > > 1. The guisp only seems to work with gui=undercurl and not with
> > > gui=underline (the undercurl gives a nice MS Word look ... but
> > > since I hate MS, I tried to repalce it with underline naturally
> > > and found the above error).
> > That's right, underline didn't change, it uses the guifg color.
> > Perhaps we can use another attribute for underlining with the guisp
> > color. Can't think of a good name right now.
> Why not use guisp? I don't think anyone will want to use BOTH underline
> and undercurl will they?
highlighting. Then undercurl is still available for badly spelled
words on top of that. If you don't want to use undercurl, then perhaps
overwriting the underline in a different color would be OK.
If we would use guisp for underline then there would at least be the
fallback that when it's not set guifg must be used, otherwise it's not
backward compatible. And then when there is a spell error an existing
underline would suddenly change color when the undercurl appears.
> Anyway, if you do plan on using a different name, might I suggestI was thinking of another name for "underline" that does use the guisp
> 'guiuc' (for undercurl) and 'guiul' for underline :)
color. I don't really want to add more color arguments, it's a bit
bulky in the code.
The startling truth finally became apparent, and it was this: Numbers
written on restaurant checks within the confines of restaurants do not follow
the same mathematical laws as numbers written on any other pieces of paper in
any other parts of the Universe. This single statement took the scientific
world by storm. So many mathematical conferences got held in such good
restaurants that many of the finest minds of a generation died of obesity and
heart failure, and the science of mathematics was put back by years.
-- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
/// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// Sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
\\\ Buy LOTR 3 and help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF.nl/lotr.html ///
- On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:15:32PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> > (unrelated) Ctrl-W works differently in gvim7 command line. In aOk. I messed up on this one. However I now have another problem -- I
> > buffer in insert mode, ctrl-w deletes a word. But in gvim in the
> > command line ctrl-W deletes a blank delimited word. (I know in
> > vim6.3.x ctrl-W deletes a word in command line, but have not yet
> > compiled the GUI on this computer so don't know what the GUI does).
> I don't think this changed from previous versions. It's very well
> possible that CTRL-W works different on the command line compared to
> Insert mode.
find that pressing Ctrl-W in the command line deletes a word as defined
by iskeyword from the current buffer. (Everytime I tried in gvim7, I was
viewing a help file, hence blank delmited words got deleted on pressing
I'm wondering if the above is what was intended or not. To me it seems
more intuitive if Ctrl-W worked the same always (as opposed to deleting
too much when viewing a help file). But ofcourse you and others might
feel differently ... :)
Alternative definitions of terms from Math Lectures:
TRIVIAL: If I have to show you how to do this, you're in the wrong