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

Re: minor feature request: let!

Expand Messages
  • Mikolaj Machowski
    ... Definitely not. I was thinking about suggestion of :let! few times before and each time I was throwing it away. For example :let allows to change settings.
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dnia niedziela, 2 lipca 2006 12:06, Nikolai Weibull napisał:
      > On 7/1/06, justin constantino <goflyapig@...> wrote:
      > > E706: Variable type mismatch
      > >
      > > As a minor improvement, I think it would be nice if you could do:
      > >
      > > let foo = "one,two,three"
      > > let! foo = split(foo, ',')
      >
      > I think we should just remove the whole restriction.
      >
      Definitely not. I was thinking about suggestion of :let! few times before
      and each time I was throwing it away. For example :let allows to change
      settings. Silently dropping changing of option value or setting it to
      some absurd setting would be Bad Thing(tm).

      m.
    • Nikolai Weibull
      ... And in any case, setting an option using let is very different from setting a user variable to a value. This is a case of Trying Too Hard . When exactly
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 7/2/06, Yakov Lerner <iler.ml@...> wrote:
        > On 7/2/06, Mikolaj Machowski <mikmach@...> wrote:
        > > Dnia niedziela, 2 lipca 2006 12:06, Nikolai Weibull napisał:
        > > > On 7/1/06, justin constantino <goflyapig@...> wrote:
        > > > > E706: Variable type mismatch
        > > > >
        > > > > As a minor improvement, I think it would be nice if you could do:
        > > > >
        > > > > let foo = "one,two,three"
        > > > > let! foo = split(foo, ',')
        > > >
        > > > I think we should just remove the whole restriction.
        > > >
        > > Definitely not. I was thinking about suggestion of :let! few times before
        > > and each time I was throwing it away. For example :let allows to change
        > > settings. Silently dropping changing of option value or setting it to
        > > some absurd setting would be Bad Thing(tm).
        >
        > I'd like to see how current :let is so super-intelligent
        > so that it prevents assignment of what you call "absurd setting"
        > to the &options.
        >
        > Consider string-to-number assignment rules.
        > :let &readonly="abc" " silently allowed
        > :let &shiftwidth="xyz" " silently allowed
        > :let &statusline=123 " silently allowed

        And in any case, setting an option using let is very different from
        setting a user variable to a value.

        This is a case of "Trying Too Hard".

        When exactly does this prevent you from making an error?

        It's only valid for options, and they have very different semantics
        from user variables. So just drop the check and allow people to reuse
        their variables if they like.

        nikolai
      • Hari Krishna Dara
        ... I recently sent a question to vim list about the same restriction. The restriction doesn t make any sense to me either. -- Thanks, Hari
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 at 12:06pm, Nikolai Weibull wrote:

          > On 7/1/06, justin constantino <goflyapig@...> wrote:
          >
          > > E706: Variable type mismatch
          >
          > > As a minor improvement, I think it would be nice if you could do:
          > >
          > > let foo = "one,two,three"
          > > let! foo = split(foo, ',')
          >
          > I think we should just remove the whole restriction.
          >
          > nikolai
          >

          I recently sent a question to vim list about the same restriction. The
          restriction doesn't make any sense to me either.

          --
          Thanks,
          Hari

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • Bram Moolenaar
          ... Suppose someone asks you what the foo variable is for, what are you going answer? The point is: let the variable name reflect what it contains, don t
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 9, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Justin Constantino wrote:

            > Currently, if you try to assign a value to a variable with a different
            > type, you get:
            >
            > E706: Variable type mismatch
            >
            > To make it work, you have to first unlet the variable, which is kind
            > of annoying if the expression you are assigning references that
            > variable. For example, to split a string in-place, you have to do:
            >
            > let foo = "one,two,three"
            > let temp = split(foo, ',')
            > unlet foo
            > let foo = temp
            > unlet temp
            >
            > As a minor improvement, I think it would be nice if you could do:
            >
            > let foo = "one,two,three"
            > let! foo = split(foo, ',')

            Suppose someone asks you what the "foo" variable is for, what are you
            going answer?

            The point is: let the variable name reflect what it contains, don't
            re-use the same variable for something else. That way your code will be
            a lot more readable.

            let fooline = "one,two,three"
            let foowords = split(fooline, ',')

            --
            For large projects, Team Leaders use sophisticated project management software
            to keep track of who's doing what. The software collects the lies and guesses
            of the project team and organizes them in to instantly outdated charts that
            are too boring to look at closely. This is called "planning".
            (Scott Adams - The Dilbert principle)

            /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
            /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
            \\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
            \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
          • justin constantino
            ... Fair enough, but in most of the cases where this came up, I never really cared about the fooline variable. It only existed as an intermediate to
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 13, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On 7/9/06, Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...> wrote:
              >
              > Justin Constantino wrote:
              >
              > > Currently, if you try to assign a value to a variable with a different
              > > type, you get:
              > >
              > > E706: Variable type mismatch
              > >
              > > To make it work, you have to first unlet the variable, which is kind
              > > of annoying if the expression you are assigning references that
              > > variable. For example, to split a string in-place, you have to do:
              > >
              > > let foo = "one,two,three"
              > > let temp = split(foo, ',')
              > > unlet foo
              > > let foo = temp
              > > unlet temp
              > >
              > > As a minor improvement, I think it would be nice if you could do:
              > >
              > > let foo = "one,two,three"
              > > let! foo = split(foo, ',')
              >
              > Suppose someone asks you what the "foo" variable is for, what are you
              > going answer?
              >
              > The point is: let the variable name reflect what it contains, don't
              > re-use the same variable for something else. That way your code will be
              > a lot more readable.
              >
              > let fooline = "one,two,three"
              > let foowords = split(fooline, ',')
              >

              Fair enough, but in most of the cases where this came up, I never
              really cared about the 'fooline' variable. It only existed as an
              intermediate to 'foowords'. My choices were either: 1) put everything
              in one assignment, which can get long and messy and harder to read, or
              2) split it into two assignments by declaring an extra 'foowords' that
              I never really care about. Reusing the variable makes sense to me in
              this case, and this seemed like a harmless and logical addition, but I
              guess you're the Bram.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.