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

Re: synIDattr() and 'guisp' attribute [with patch]

Expand Messages
  • Matt Wozniski
    ... Naturally not; your response was far more wasteful than my post already, and not just because of wasting twice as many bytes. My post was an obvious
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
      >
      > I'm seeing your message and I don't know the answer. Do you want a
      > similar message from everyone who doesn't know the answer?

      Naturally not; your response was far more wasteful than my post
      already, and not just because of wasting twice as many bytes. My post
      was an obvious attempt to get confirmation from Bram that he has seen
      this and to ascertain whether he agrees, disagrees, or is or is not
      considering this simple patch. Your post, on the other hand,
      contributed nothing whatsoever.

      > Then go ahead, continue spamming the list with identical repeats of
      > your post.

      This thread is only on vim-dev, rather than with Bram alone, for the
      convenience of those later searching to find out why this did not work
      on older vim versions, when someone noticed it, and when it began
      working properly - or, as the case may be, why the patch was not
      accepted. One message per week, on a developer mailing list, to
      ensure that a developer has seen and is considering a bug report, is
      by no means unreasonable. If someone considers it a waste of his time
      and bandwidth to receive messages about unfixed bugs in vim, I'd
      suggest that he unsubscribe from the vim development mailing list.

      ~Matt

      --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
      You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
      -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
    • Charles Campbell
      ... Your re-ping contributed nothing whatsover; if you wanted a response directly from Bram, it would ve been better to re-send the message directly
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Matt Wozniski wrote:
        > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
        >
        >> I'm seeing your message and I don't know the answer. Do you want a
        >> similar message from everyone who doesn't know the answer?
        >>
        >
        > Naturally not; your response was far more wasteful than my post
        > already, and not just because of wasting twice as many bytes. My post
        > was an obvious attempt to get confirmation from Bram that he has seen
        > this and to ascertain whether he agrees, disagrees, or is or is not
        > considering this simple patch. Your post, on the other hand,
        > contributed nothing whatsoever.
        >
        <snip>

        Your "re-ping" contributed nothing whatsover; if you wanted a response
        directly from Bram, it would've been better to re-send the message
        directly to him. Your original request, as far as
        trackability/history/etc, was reasonable IMHO to have put on the list.

        Chip Campbell


        --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
        You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
        For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
        -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
      • Tony Mechelynck
        ... Maybe I used (in the part you snipped) language which was felt unusually strong for this list. I guess it was a carryover from Mozilla bug language,
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          On 02/09/08 18:46, Charles Campbell wrote:
          > Matt Wozniski wrote:
          >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
          >>
          >>> I'm seeing your message and I don't know the answer. Do you want a
          >>> similar message from everyone who doesn't know the answer?
          >>>
          >> Naturally not; your response was far more wasteful than my post
          >> already, and not just because of wasting twice as many bytes. My post
          >> was an obvious attempt to get confirmation from Bram that he has seen
          >> this and to ascertain whether he agrees, disagrees, or is or is not
          >> considering this simple patch. Your post, on the other hand,
          >> contributed nothing whatsoever.
          >>
          > <snip>
          >
          > Your "re-ping" contributed nothing whatsover; if you wanted a response
          > directly from Bram, it would've been better to re-send the message
          > directly to him. Your original request, as far as
          > trackability/history/etc, was reasonable IMHO to have put on the list.
          >
          > Chip Campbell

          Maybe I used (in the part you snipped) language which was felt unusually
          strong for this list. I guess it was a carryover from "Mozilla bug"
          language, where "spamming the bug" is used to mean "adding to a bug
          report commentaries which don't contribute to the solution" as used e.g.
          when some newbie discovers a bug and says "What!? A four-year-old bug
          and not yet solved? What are you Mozilla chair-warmers doing? I guess
          I'd better go back to IE".


          Best regards,
          Tony.
          --
          "I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to
          make it shorter."
          -- Blaise Pascal

          --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
          You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
          For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
          -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
        • Bram Moolenaar
          ... It s in the todo list. -- I am also told that there is a logical proof out there somewhere that demonstrates that there is no task which duct tape cannot
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 3, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Matt Wozniski wrote:

            > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Matt Wozniski wrote:
            > > synIDattr() currently does not support the ability to read a 'guisp'
            > > attribute from a highlight group, even though the underlying C
            > > function it exposes does support it. I've attached a patch to update
            > > the interface and docs to allow and document, respectively, use of the
            > > 'sp' and 'sp#' attributes. Is there any other way to get this
            > > information on an older vim but using :redir?
            > >
            > > ~Matt
            >
            > Re-Ping?

            It's in the todo list.

            --
            I am also told that there is a logical proof out there somewhere
            that demonstrates that there is no task which duct tape cannot handle.
            -- Paul Brannan

            /// 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 ///

            --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
            You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
            For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
            -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.