Re: Occult completion
- Quoting -- without the full context -- what
Bram Moolenaar Sent on 11 Sep 2005 15:19:39 +0200:
> Mikolaj Machowski wrote:<snip>
>> What about completion window (like in icompletion(?) program on<snip>
> Do you mean a Vim window or a separate popup window? I plan to
> add a popup window, which is positioned just below where you are
> typing. This will be quite a bit of work to implement for all
> systems, but it's the only good way to show the alternatives.
>> User could switch to as regular window and choose element like<snip>
>> in error window.
> This is going to be quite a lot of typing to get the item you
> want. Using the mouse may become more attractive.
Are you saying movement in the regular window will take more
typing than movement in the pop-up window? Please explain because
I would have thought just the opposite: that movement in a
regualar window would be much easier (with support for ijkl,
/search etc.) than in a pop-up window; and it is the pop-up
window that would require mouse!
> -----Original Message-----Actually, in this sense, it is. Not the *desire* to include it, which is
> From: Gary Johnson [mailto:garyjohn@...]
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 12:43 PM
> To: vim-dev@...
> Subject: Re: Occult completion
> On 2005-09-19, "Keith W. Roberts" <keithr@...> wrote:
> > > From: Mike Williams [mailto:mike.williams@...]
> > > Aaron Griffin did utter on 14/09/2005 15:57:
> > > > I find nothing wrong with the word "occult", and in fact I
> > > think it's
> > > > great. All the other apps seem to name their completion as
> > > if it was
> > > > a form of intelligence... vim's seems to represent that it's not
> > > > intelligent, but is more like voodoo 8)
> > >
> > > Various school boards may think otherwise.
> > I never saw anything a school board *did* like, unless it
> > was ultra-liberal and revisionist!
> Requiring the teaching of the Biblical version of creation in a
> science class is ultra-liberal?
ultra-conservative (read reactionary), and based solely on the desire to
make faith-based belief transcend science, but rather the attempt to so
*broaden* the school curriculum as to include both creationism and evolution
as "scientific" possibilities or theories. That's the most liberal
definition of "science" *I've* ever heard. For one thing, the very
definition of creationism precludes it from being considered a "theory".
Close to half the population seems to think that it would be a good idea to
teach both, so it's no wonder that any particular school board might propose
to do so if the makeup of that board were somewhat skewed. But you notice
it ain't happened, because all the specious arguments that have been brought
to bear have been shot down by the courts, including the "fairness"
argument. Besides, that's what Sunday school and parochial schools are for.