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

Re: Does 'man' syntax do its job?

Expand Messages
  • Charles E Campbell Jr
    ... That wasn t my objection; I rather like inline folding. Also, perhaps I may not have stated Bram s objection correctly, or perhaps I misunderstood it.
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 3, 2007
      A.J.Mechelynck wrote:

      > Charles E Campbell Jr wrote:
      > [...]
      >
      >> Unfortunately, IMHO, inline folding didn't get enough votes during
      >> vim 7.0's development, and Bram is uncomfortable with the idea of
      >> inline folding because it, naturally enough, suppresses information
      >> (Vince's patch typically folds all lines but the current one). At
      >> least, that's how I understand the state of things.
      >>
      >> Regards,
      >> Chip Campbell
      >>
      >>
      >
      > Doesn't linewise folding also suppress information? Yet Vim has had
      > that for quite some time. It is true that it doesn't make the folds
      > disappear completely; rather, each outer closed fold is replaced by
      > one line. That wouldn't work for inline folding; but maybe it could
      > use the 'foldcolumn' or something to draw attention to the fact that
      > something has been hidden.
      >
      > And BTW, the Hidden highlight group (guibg=bg guifg=bg) also
      > "suppresses" whatever uses it, yet IIUC it is used a lot in helpfiles.
      > I'm not sure about netrw, but the older Explorer plugin also used it
      > to hide its sort key.

      That wasn't my objection; I rather like inline folding. Also, perhaps I
      may not have stated Bram's objection correctly, or perhaps I
      misunderstood it. After all, he does have the following note in the
      todo.txt:

      - Add 'hidecomment' option: don't display comments in /* */ and after //.
      Or is the conceal patch from Vince Negri a more generic solution?

      Vince Negri's patch could certainly be used to hide comments but leave
      the comment start designators visible. It basically allows one to
      extend syntax highlighting to include the "conceal" option, so one can
      specify things to inline conceal.

      Vince's folding patch supports the notion of "conceallevel"; taken from
      his patch to options.txt:

      'conceallevel' Effect
      0 Text is shown normally
      1 Each block of concealed text is replaced with the
      character defined in 'listchars' (default is a dash)
      and highlighted with the "Conceal" highlight group.
      2 Concealed text is completely hidden unless it has a
      custom replacement character defined (see
      |syn-cchar|.
      3 Concealed text is completely hidden.

      Even conceallevel==3 isn't actually "completely hidden"; instead, the
      current line (the one the cursor is on and where presumably editing may
      occur) has its text shown normally (ie. no inline folding on the current
      line).

      Regards,
      Chip Campbell
    • Vince Negri
      ... The display depends on the setting of concealevel . When set to 1, inline folded elements are replaced by a configurable special character. When set to 2,
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 3, 2007
        A.J.Mechelynck [mailto:antoine.mechelynck@...] wrote:

        > Doesn't linewise folding also suppress information? Yet Vim has had that for
        > quite some time. It is true that it doesn't make the folds disappear
        > completely; rather, each outer closed fold is replaced by one line. That
        > wouldn't work for inline folding; but maybe it could use the 'foldcolumn' or
        > something to draw attention to the fact that something has been hidden.

        The display depends on the setting of "concealevel". When set to 1, inline folded
        elements are replaced by a configurable special character. When set to 2, the
        folded elements are hidden completely; your idea of showing something in
        foldcolumn is an interesting one.

        Vince
      • Vince Negri
        James Vega [mailto:jamessan@jamessan.com] wrote: On the other hand, integrating the [conceal] patch would provide a solution for various itches that I know
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 4, 2007
          James Vega [mailto:jamessan@...] wrote:

          On the other hand, integrating the [conceal] patch would provide a solution for
          various itches that I know people want to scratch (mainly to do with
          builtin previewing of filetypes like html, tex, etc). If it were
          disabled by default (as I think folding should be), it would allow
          people that knew of it to take advantage of the functionality without
          causing novice users to wonder what the heck is going on.

          FYI the default "conceallevel" is 0, at which no concealment goes on at all.

          To recap:

          0 - normal operation.

          1 - inline folding, each group of concealed chars replaced by a configurable character
          (by default this is a "-" highlighted to look similar to a folded line.

          Mode 1 is most useful for "folding out" applications, since you can always
          see that something has been removed.

          2 - hide/replace mode. Concealed chars are hidden completely, unless a character has
          been specified for them in the syntax definition. Simple example: in my own
          HTML syntax I have the "&" sequence folded and replaced with "&".

          Mode 2 is the most useful for "smart" TeX and HTML etc editing, as it has
          the cleanest look.

          3 - hide mode. Concealed chars are always hidden completely. This is only there for
          completeness, I would imagine option 2 is always the more useful.


          Vince
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.