On 16/12/09 17:12, Tom Link wrote: [...] ... OK, so let s add a user s report. The only patch I use from that vim-dev list of semi-official patches is Bill
Message 1 of 9
, Jan 31, 2010
On 16/12/09 17:12, Tom Link wrote:
> Anyway, there seems to be no way to report success/failures with
> certain patches in a systematic manner that would allow Bram to get an
> adequate overview of how many people use a certain patch with which
> version (incl patch level) of vim and how many of those people
> experience problems that can be reproduced so that we know for sure
> that the problem is actually caused by the patch etc. Otherwise the
> patch authors (I didn't contribute a patch so this is just another
> "personal theory") probably get frustrated, they abandon vim, they
> stop maintaining their patches with the consequence that their patches
> are likely to quickly become unusable since the development of vim
OK, so let's add a user's report.
The only patch I use from that vim-dev list of semi-official patches is
Bill McCarthy's "extra float functions" patch. I've been using it
constantly in Huge Vim builds with GTK2/Gnome2 GUI ever since it was
published (which was more than a year ago) and I've had exactly zero
problems with it in all that time. Of course patches to eval.c apply
with a line-offset but that's strictly all. I believe it would be a
valuable addition to Vim (versions with +float, of course -- all this
patch's code is bracketed by #ifdef FEAT_FLOAT). This patch integrates
so "naturally" with Vim that when I use a float function in an :echo
statement (usually :echo printf(...)) at the command-line, I don't know
(unless I look into the help, of course) whether it's from Bill's set of
float functions, or from Bram's.
Also, if anyone has had any problems at all with this float-functions
patch, I haven't noticed any mention of it on the list.
P.S. Bill: a missing #ifdef FEAT_FLOAT around the lines concerning tan()
and tanh() at line 7807-after of eval.c 7.2.350 (line 7664-before /
7690-after at the time the patch was written) seems to imply that this
patch wouldn't compile in a build with +eval but -float. I don't see the
problem since "my" builds are either Huge (+eval +float) or Tiny (-eval).
It may seem weird to include a "floating-point patch" in a build
compiled with -float but one might want to compile several
differently-configured versions out of the same sources -- as I do but
not in a way to be hurt.
Dear Lord, observe this bended knee
This visage meek and humble,
And hear this confidential plea
Voiced in reverent mumble:
Give me Shylock, give me Fagin
But O God spare me Ronald Reagan!
-- Ansel Adams