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

Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command

Expand Messages
  • Ben Fritz
    ... This got me thinking...so tried the following: gvim -N -u NONE -i NONE filetype indent plugin on syntax on ... I do not see the progress bars! The status
    Message 1 of 28 , Jun 2, 2010
      On Jun 2, 8:43 am, Ben Fritz <fritzophre...@...> wrote:
      > On Jun 2, 3:13 am, "Christian Brabandt" <cbli...@...> wrote:
      >
      > > On Wed, June 2, 2010 1:04 am, Benjamin Fritz wrote:
      > > > - Added a second progress bar for the attributes processing (previously I
      > > > was
      > > >   doing this with a %d/%d printf).
      > > > I also removed the "redrawstatus" commands. They did not seem to be
      > > > necessary,
      > > > and only served to increase the processing time. Did you have a particular
      > > > reason to include them?
      >
      > > Yes. I can't see the progressbar otherwise. It is not updating for me. So
      > > I suggest, enabling it again.
      >
      > Interesting. Is this true, even with the progress bar on the top
      > window as in the latest version? If it is on the bottom, the screen
      > clears again for a redraw immediately after the bottom status line is
      > drawn, making it very hard to see the progress bar...which is why I
      > put it on the top.
      >

      This got me thinking...so tried the following:

      gvim -N -u NONE -i NONE
      filetype indent plugin on
      syntax on
      :help intro
      :source $HOME/vimfiles/syntax/2html.vim

      I do not see the progress bars! The status lines never get drawn at
      all (and the conversion is lightning fast). It appears I have
      something in my Vim setup that slows things down enough, or redraws
      the window, or something, that causes the status lines to appear when
      normally they would not.

      Any ideas? I don't see anything suspicious in my usual Buf/Win Enter/
      Leave autocmds:


      --- Auto-Commands ---
      style_highlight WinEnter
      * if !exists('w:created') | call
      matchadd('WhitespaceError','\S\@<=\s\+\%#\@<!$') | endif
      if &filetype=~'\v<%(c|vim|dosbatch)>' && !
      exists('w:tabs_are_bad') | let w:tabs_are_bad =
      matchadd('WhitespaceError',"\t") | endif
      misc WinEnter
      * if !exists('w:created') && &ft!='qf' | setlocal nowrap
      | endif
      matchparen WinEnter
      * call s:Highlight_Matching_Pair()
      misc WinEnter
      * let w:created=1

      --- Auto-Commands ---
      insertmode WinLeave
      * if exists('w:last_fdm') | let &l:foldmethod=w:last_fdm |
      unlet w:last_fdm | endif

      --- Auto-Commands ---
      filetypedetect BufEnter
      *.xpm if getline(1) =~ "XPM2" | setf xpm2 | else | setf
      xpm | endif
      *.xpm2 setf xpm2
      misc BufEnter
      * if (&ft=='qf' || &previewwindow || bufname('%') ==#
      "__Tag_List__") && !exists('s:scrolloff_sav') | let
      s:scrolloff_sav=&scrolloff | set scrolloff=0 | endif
      repeatPlugin BufEnter
      * if g:repeat_tick == 0|let g:repeat_tick = b:changedtick|
      endif
      FileExplorer BufEnter
      * silent! call s:LocalBrowse(expand("<amatch>"))
      .* silent! call s:LocalBrowse(expand("<amatch>"))
      BufEnter
      *.vba setlocal bt=nofile fmr=[[[,]]] fdm=marker|if &ff !=
      'unix'| setlocal ma ff=unix noma |endif|call
      vimball#ShowMesg(0,"Source this file to extract it! (:so %)")
      *.vba.gz setlocal bt=nofile fmr=[[[,]]] fdm=marker|if &ff !=
      'unix'| setlocal ma ff=unix noma |endif|call
      vimball#ShowMesg(0,"Source this file to extract it! (:so %)")
      *.vba.bz2 setlocal bt=nofile fmr=[[[,]]] fdm=marker|if &ff !=
      'unix'| setlocal ma ff=unix noma |endif|call
      vimball#ShowMesg(0,"Source this file to extract it! (:so %)")
      *.vba.zip setlocal bt=nofile fmr=[[[,]]] fdm=marker|if &ff !=
      'unix'| setlocal ma ff=unix noma |endif|call
      vimball#ShowMesg(0,"Source this file to extract it! (:so %)")

      --- Auto-Commands ---
      misc BufLeave
      * if (&ft=='qf' || &previewwindow || bufname('%') ==#
      "__Tag_List__") && exists('s:scrolloff_sav') | let
      &scrolloff=s:scrolloff_sav | unlet s:scrolloff_sav | endif
      repeatPlugin BufLeave
      * let g:repeat_tick = (g:repeat_tick == b:changedtick ||
      g:repeat_tick == 0) ? 0 : -1

      --
      You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
      Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
    • Benjamin Fritz
      ... Found it. I have the following in my .vimrc: Highlight trailing whitespace, unless it is being entered now autocmd WinEnter,VimEnter * if
      Message 2 of 28 , Jun 2, 2010
        On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Ben Fritz <fritzophrenic@...> wrote:
        > It appears I have
        > something in my Vim setup that slows things down enough, or redraws
        > the window, or something, that causes the status lines to appear when
        > normally they would not.
        >
        > Any ideas? I don't see anything suspicious in my usual Buf/Win Enter/
        > Leave autocmds:
        >

        Found it. I have the following in my .vimrc:

        " Highlight trailing whitespace, unless it is being entered now
        autocmd WinEnter,VimEnter *
        \ if !exists('w:created') |
        \ call matchadd('WhitespaceError','\S\@<=\s\+\%#\@<!$') |
        \ endif
        " necessary to have it highlight a just-entered trailing space
        autocmd InsertLeave * redraw!

        The InsertLeave command is triggering because 2html works using
        normal! a... commands. I have the autocmd because of the following
        text in :help /\%# :

        WARNING: When the cursor is moved after the pattern was used, the
        result becomes invalid. Vim doesn't automatically update the matches.
        This is especially relevant for syntax highlighting and 'hlsearch'.
        In other words: When the cursor moves the display isn't updated for
        this change. An update is done for lines which are changed (the whole
        line is updated) or when using the |CTRL-L| command (the whole screen
        is updated).

        So anyway, it looks like we need to do the redrawstatus. It would be
        easiest to just use redrawstatus! right after calling the incr
        function. I wonder how much of a performance impact this has? If it is
        significant, we should probably call it only sometimes, perhaps after
        a progress bar position update (which would mean the number of
        processed lines would not be updated in real-time on large files). Any
        thoughts/input?

        It appears we also need to ignore some events; at least BufEnter,
        WinEnter, InsertEnter, BufLeave, WinLeave, and InsertLeave. Syntax
        seems like a good idea as well, but then we'd want to do the syntax
        highlight when done, so perhaps we can leave this one in. Thoughts on
        this? Is this really needed as part of the same patch or would this be
        a future, performance-enhancing-only, patch?

        --
        You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
        Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
        For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
      • Christian Brabandt
        ... Try the attached version: - Check for +float - Should work better with smaller window sizes - Make the progressbar for the attribute processing slightly
        Message 3 of 28 , Jun 3, 2010
          On Wed, June 2, 2010 4:36 am, Benjamin Fritz wrote:

          > Any additional comments or fixes?

          Try the attached version:

          - Check for +float
          - Should work better with smaller window sizes
          - Make the progressbar for the attribute processing slightly slower
          (it was too fast, to notice it)
          - small enhancements to how the progressbar works and how it displays.
          - don't show any content from the html window

          regards,
          Christian

          --
          You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
          Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
          For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
        • Benjamin Fritz
          ... More tweaks. This one is about twice as fast as Christian s, which it accomplishes by only redrawing when the progress bar has changed position. Question:
          Message 4 of 28 , Jun 3, 2010
            On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Christian Brabandt <cblists@...> wrote:
            >
            > Try the attached version:
            >
            > - Check for +float
            > - Should work better with smaller window sizes
            > - Make the progressbar for the attribute processing slightly slower
            >  (it was too fast, to notice it)
            > - small enhancements to how the progressbar works and how it displays.
            > - don't show any content from the html window
            >

            More tweaks. This one is about twice as fast as Christian's, which it
            accomplishes by only redrawing when the progress bar has changed
            position.

            Question: Christian's version calls :redrawstatus on the original
            window, but the new window is updated perfectly fine. :help
            :redrawstatus seems to indicate that only the current window will be
            redrawn unless the ! is given. What gives?

            Regardless, I have fixed the above issue and made a couple more minor
            fixes, including getting the entire title to display on my teensy
            laptop screen.

            This version is still not fast enough though. It is about 30% slower
            when the progress bar is enabled than when it is disabled. While I
            consider it a good tradeoff in most cases, we could certainly make it
            better.

            It would probably be faster to pre-calculate the line numbers needed
            to advance the progress bar rather than doing a bunch of
            floating-point math every cycle.

            --
            You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
            Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
            For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
          • Benjamin Fritz
            ... I ve attached a new version which pre-calculates the (integer) line numbers needed to advance the progress bar. Now all the floating point math is done
            Message 5 of 28 , Jun 5, 2010
              On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Benjamin Fritz <fritzophrenic@...> wrote:
              > This version is still not fast enough though. It is about 30% slower
              > when the progress bar is enabled than when it is disabled. While I
              > consider it a good tradeoff in most cases, we could certainly make it
              > better.
              >
              > It would probably be faster to pre-calculate the line numbers needed
              > to advance the progress bar rather than doing a bunch of
              > floating-point math every cycle.
              >

              I've attached a new version which pre-calculates the (integer) line
              numbers needed to advance the progress bar. Now all the floating point
              math is done once, up front.

              The difference is not really very perceptible. I timed the execution
              on two files. First, I did the 5148-line autoload/phpcomplete.vim
              script. Timings were as follows on my laptop:

              progress disabled:
              average: 46 seconds

              floating-point progress:
              average: 61 seconds
              slowdown: 15 seconds longer than without progress bar
              percentage: 33% longer than without progress bar

              precalculated progress:
              average: 62 seconds
              slowdown: 16 seconds longer than without progress bar
              percentage: 35% longer than without progress bar

              Next I did a 33258-line C code file:

              progress disabled:
              average: 691 seconds

              floating-point progress:
              average: 716 seconds
              slowdown: 25 seconds longer than without progress bar
              percentage: 4% longer than without progress bar

              precalculated progress:
              average: 711 seconds
              slowdown: 20 seconds longer than without progress bar
              percentage: 3% longer than without progress bar

              I also did a number of very small sections of files (my usual use case
              for 2html) and did not notice any significant slowing; it only takes
              1-2 seconds longer for a 100 or 200 line selection.

              I take a few things from this.

              First of all, I don't think we'll get much performance improvement
              with this method. I do not know whether it is setting the status line
              and redrawing it, or whether it is the use of the object-oriented
              style functions, but it would probably require a different approach to
              get a significant speedup. I certainly like the look a lot better than
              the echo method, even if we could get echon working. Is a 10-20 second
              slow-down acceptable on large numbers of lines, if the normal
              execution time is measured in minutes anyway? To me, it certainly is.
              If something is going to be taking more than a few minutes, I want a
              progress bar to tell me whether it's worth letting it continue. Since
              the slow-down can be significant for midsize files, we will certainly
              need to mention in the :help that disabling the progress bar will make
              the conversion faster. Maybe we should only show the progress bar
              after some amount of time has elapsed? We could suppress the
              redrawstatus until 10 seconds have passed, or something like that. Any
              thoughts?

              Secondly, the precalculated version is not really any faster than the
              full floating-point calculation every cycle. I don't really have an
              opinion of which method gives more readable code. Does anyone else
              have any opinions on which version to keep? I think it would be
              possible to do away with floating point calculations entirely using
              the precalculated version; currently floating point is only used in
              the calculate_ticks function. This might be desireable so that we can
              remove the dependence on the +float feature, which is not marked with
              a "smallest version" indicator in :help +feature-list. This apparently
              means it is "system dependent". Does this mean float is pretty much
              always included, unless it is explicitly removed? How common are Vims
              without floating-point support? I already added use of the split()
              function, which was added in version 7, so this won't work on really
              old Vims...but do we want to support Vim 7.1 and earlier?

              --
              You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
              Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
              For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
            • ZyX
              Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command», присланное в 19:39:15 05 июня 2010, Суббота,
              Message 6 of 28 , Jun 5, 2010
                Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command»,
                присланное в 19:39:15 05 июня 2010, Суббота,
                отправитель Benjamin Fritz:

                Why do you need float math for progress bar? Integer division is enough unless
                you are going to show progress in %.1f or even more precious format. %3.d format
                that you are using is integer and you obviously can't show half of a character.

                Текст сообщения:
                > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Benjamin Fritz <fritzophrenic@...>
                wrote:
                > > This version is still not fast enough though. It is about 30% slower
                > > when the progress bar is enabled than when it is disabled. While I
                > > consider it a good tradeoff in most cases, we could certainly make it
                > > better.
                > >
                > > It would probably be faster to pre-calculate the line numbers needed
                > > to advance the progress bar rather than doing a bunch of
                > > floating-point math every cycle.
                >
                > I've attached a new version which pre-calculates the (integer) line
                > numbers needed to advance the progress bar. Now all the floating point
                > math is done once, up front.
                >
                > The difference is not really very perceptible. I timed the execution
                > on two files. First, I did the 5148-line autoload/phpcomplete.vim
                > script. Timings were as follows on my laptop:
                >
                > progress disabled:
                > average: 46 seconds
                >
                > floating-point progress:
                > average: 61 seconds
                > slowdown: 15 seconds longer than without progress bar
                > percentage: 33% longer than without progress bar
                >
                > precalculated progress:
                > average: 62 seconds
                > slowdown: 16 seconds longer than without progress bar
                > percentage: 35% longer than without progress bar
                >
                > Next I did a 33258-line C code file:
                >
                > progress disabled:
                > average: 691 seconds
                >
                > floating-point progress:
                > average: 716 seconds
                > slowdown: 25 seconds longer than without progress bar
                > percentage: 4% longer than without progress bar
                >
                > precalculated progress:
                > average: 711 seconds
                > slowdown: 20 seconds longer than without progress bar
                > percentage: 3% longer than without progress bar
                >
                > I also did a number of very small sections of files (my usual use case
                > for 2html) and did not notice any significant slowing; it only takes
                > 1-2 seconds longer for a 100 or 200 line selection.
                >
                > I take a few things from this.
                >
                > First of all, I don't think we'll get much performance improvement
                > with this method. I do not know whether it is setting the status line
                > and redrawing it, or whether it is the use of the object-oriented
                > style functions, but it would probably require a different approach to
                > get a significant speedup. I certainly like the look a lot better than
                > the echo method, even if we could get echon working. Is a 10-20 second
                > slow-down acceptable on large numbers of lines, if the normal
                > execution time is measured in minutes anyway? To me, it certainly is.
                > If something is going to be taking more than a few minutes, I want a
                > progress bar to tell me whether it's worth letting it continue. Since
                > the slow-down can be significant for midsize files, we will certainly
                > need to mention in the :help that disabling the progress bar will make
                > the conversion faster. Maybe we should only show the progress bar
                > after some amount of time has elapsed? We could suppress the
                > redrawstatus until 10 seconds have passed, or something like that. Any
                > thoughts?
                >
                > Secondly, the precalculated version is not really any faster than the
                > full floating-point calculation every cycle. I don't really have an
                > opinion of which method gives more readable code. Does anyone else
                > have any opinions on which version to keep? I think it would be
                > possible to do away with floating point calculations entirely using
                > the precalculated version; currently floating point is only used in
                > the calculate_ticks function. This might be desireable so that we can
                > remove the dependence on the +float feature, which is not marked with
                > a "smallest version" indicator in :help +feature-list. This apparently
                > means it is "system dependent". Does this mean float is pretty much
                > always included, unless it is explicitly removed? How common are Vims
                > without floating-point support? I already added use of the split()
                > function, which was added in version 7, so this won't work on really
                > old Vims...but do we want to support Vim 7.1 and earlier?
                >
              • ZyX
                Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command», присланное в 19:39:15 05 июня 2010, Суббота,
                Message 7 of 28 , Jun 5, 2010
                  Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command»,
                  присланное в 19:39:15 05 июня 2010, Суббота,
                  отправитель Benjamin Fritz:

                  A small benchmark for your and mine scripts:
                  user system cpu total Relative
                  mine, no progress 93,07 10,82 99% 1:44,06 + 5%
                  mine, only per cents and bar 95,77 10,92 99% 1:46,94 + 8%
                  mine, %, bar and lines 125,59 14,80 99% 2:20,83 +43%
                  2html from vim-7.2.303 97,34 1,16 99% 1:38,64 + 0%
                  your 2html, no progress 77,31 0,99 99% 1:18,55 -20%
                  your 2html, with progress 100,57 1,20 99% 1:42,76 + 4%

                  Commands:
                  # mine, no progress
                  time vim messages -c 'set ft=messages | execute "%FormatCommand format html" | qa!'
                  # mine, only % and bar
                  time vim messages -c 'set ft=messages | let g:formatOptions={"ShowProgress": 1} | execute "%FormatCommand format
                  html" | qa!'
                  # mine, %, bar and lines
                  time vim messages -c 'set ft=messages | let g:formatOptions={"ShowProgress": 2} | execute "%FormatCommand format
                  html" | qa!'
                  # 2html, your with progress and 2html from vim-7.2.303
                  # Difference is that in second case I created a symlink to your file in
                  # .vim/syntax directory
                  time vim messages -c 'set ft=messages | execute "TOhtml" | qa!'
                  # your 2html, with progress
                  time vim messages -c 'set ft=messages | let g:html_no_progress=1 | execute "TOhtml" | qa!'

                  You can download messages file here: (1,1M uncompressed, 77K compressed):
                  http://kp-pav.narod.ru/messages.xz
                  My script is located here (see version 1.2):
                  http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=3113

                  I do not know what exactly is a problem, but your progress is too slow.


                  Текст сообщения:
                  > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Benjamin Fritz <fritzophrenic@...> wrote:
                  > > This version is still not fast enough though. It is about 30% slower
                  > > when the progress bar is enabled than when it is disabled. While I
                  > > consider it a good tradeoff in most cases, we could certainly make it
                  > > better.
                  > >
                  > > It would probably be faster to pre-calculate the line numbers needed
                  > > to advance the progress bar rather than doing a bunch of
                  > > floating-point math every cycle.
                  >
                  > I've attached a new version which pre-calculates the (integer) line
                  > numbers needed to advance the progress bar. Now all the floating point
                  > math is done once, up front.
                  >
                  > The difference is not really very perceptible. I timed the execution
                  > on two files. First, I did the 5148-line autoload/phpcomplete.vim
                  > script. Timings were as follows on my laptop:
                  >
                  > progress disabled:
                  > average: 46 seconds
                  >
                  > floating-point progress:
                  > average: 61 seconds
                  > slowdown: 15 seconds longer than without progress bar
                  > percentage: 33% longer than without progress bar
                  >
                  > precalculated progress:
                  > average: 62 seconds
                  > slowdown: 16 seconds longer than without progress bar
                  > percentage: 35% longer than without progress bar
                  >
                  > Next I did a 33258-line C code file:
                  >
                  > progress disabled:
                  > average: 691 seconds
                  >
                  > floating-point progress:
                  > average: 716 seconds
                  > slowdown: 25 seconds longer than without progress bar
                  > percentage: 4% longer than without progress bar
                  >
                  > precalculated progress:
                  > average: 711 seconds
                  > slowdown: 20 seconds longer than without progress bar
                  > percentage: 3% longer than without progress bar
                  >
                  > I also did a number of very small sections of files (my usual use case
                  > for 2html) and did not notice any significant slowing; it only takes
                  > 1-2 seconds longer for a 100 or 200 line selection.
                  >
                  > I take a few things from this.
                  >
                  > First of all, I don't think we'll get much performance improvement
                  > with this method. I do not know whether it is setting the status line
                  > and redrawing it, or whether it is the use of the object-oriented
                  > style functions, but it would probably require a different approach to
                  > get a significant speedup. I certainly like the look a lot better than
                  > the echo method, even if we could get echon working. Is a 10-20 second
                  > slow-down acceptable on large numbers of lines, if the normal
                  > execution time is measured in minutes anyway? To me, it certainly is.
                  > If something is going to be taking more than a few minutes, I want a
                  > progress bar to tell me whether it's worth letting it continue. Since
                  > the slow-down can be significant for midsize files, we will certainly
                  > need to mention in the :help that disabling the progress bar will make
                  > the conversion faster. Maybe we should only show the progress bar
                  > after some amount of time has elapsed? We could suppress the
                  > redrawstatus until 10 seconds have passed, or something like that. Any
                  > thoughts?
                  >
                  > Secondly, the precalculated version is not really any faster than the
                  > full floating-point calculation every cycle. I don't really have an
                  > opinion of which method gives more readable code. Does anyone else
                  > have any opinions on which version to keep? I think it would be
                  > possible to do away with floating point calculations entirely using
                  > the precalculated version; currently floating point is only used in
                  > the calculate_ticks function. This might be desireable so that we can
                  > remove the dependence on the +float feature, which is not marked with
                  > a "smallest version" indicator in :help +feature-list. This apparently
                  > means it is "system dependent". Does this mean float is pretty much
                  > always included, unless it is explicitly removed? How common are Vims
                  > without floating-point support? I already added use of the split()
                  > function, which was added in version 7, so this won't work on really
                  > old Vims...but do we want to support Vim 7.1 and earlier?
                  >
                • ZyX
                  Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command», присланное в 19:39:15 05 июня 2010, Суббота,
                  Message 8 of 28 , Jun 5, 2010
                    Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command»,
                    присланное в 19:39:15 05 июня 2010, Суббота,
                    отправитель Benjamin Fritz:

                    It occures that the problem is not floating-point math: the attached patch
                    removes this math but does not add any perfomance. It also removes recalculating
                    progress bar width (you just used used some generic progress bar?) and
                    needs_redraw. Also, why you forbid profiling progress bar functions? It is also
                    fixed.

                    Текст сообщения:
                    > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Benjamin Fritz <fritzophrenic@...>
                    wrote:
                    > > This version is still not fast enough though. It is about 30% slower
                    > > when the progress bar is enabled than when it is disabled. While I
                    > > consider it a good tradeoff in most cases, we could certainly make it
                    > > better.
                    > >
                    > > It would probably be faster to pre-calculate the line numbers needed
                    > > to advance the progress bar rather than doing a bunch of
                    > > floating-point math every cycle.
                    >
                    > I've attached a new version which pre-calculates the (integer) line
                    > numbers needed to advance the progress bar. Now all the floating point
                    > math is done once, up front.
                    >
                    > The difference is not really very perceptible. I timed the execution
                    > on two files. First, I did the 5148-line autoload/phpcomplete.vim
                    > script. Timings were as follows on my laptop:
                    >
                    > progress disabled:
                    > average: 46 seconds
                    >
                    > floating-point progress:
                    > average: 61 seconds
                    > slowdown: 15 seconds longer than without progress bar
                    > percentage: 33% longer than without progress bar
                    >
                    > precalculated progress:
                    > average: 62 seconds
                    > slowdown: 16 seconds longer than without progress bar
                    > percentage: 35% longer than without progress bar
                    >
                    > Next I did a 33258-line C code file:
                    >
                    > progress disabled:
                    > average: 691 seconds
                    >
                    > floating-point progress:
                    > average: 716 seconds
                    > slowdown: 25 seconds longer than without progress bar
                    > percentage: 4% longer than without progress bar
                    >
                    > precalculated progress:
                    > average: 711 seconds
                    > slowdown: 20 seconds longer than without progress bar
                    > percentage: 3% longer than without progress bar
                    >
                    > I also did a number of very small sections of files (my usual use case
                    > for 2html) and did not notice any significant slowing; it only takes
                    > 1-2 seconds longer for a 100 or 200 line selection.
                    >
                    > I take a few things from this.
                    >
                    > First of all, I don't think we'll get much performance improvement
                    > with this method. I do not know whether it is setting the status line
                    > and redrawing it, or whether it is the use of the object-oriented
                    > style functions, but it would probably require a different approach to
                    > get a significant speedup. I certainly like the look a lot better than
                    > the echo method, even if we could get echon working. Is a 10-20 second
                    > slow-down acceptable on large numbers of lines, if the normal
                    > execution time is measured in minutes anyway? To me, it certainly is.
                    > If something is going to be taking more than a few minutes, I want a
                    > progress bar to tell me whether it's worth letting it continue. Since
                    > the slow-down can be significant for midsize files, we will certainly
                    > need to mention in the :help that disabling the progress bar will make
                    > the conversion faster. Maybe we should only show the progress bar
                    > after some amount of time has elapsed? We could suppress the
                    > redrawstatus until 10 seconds have passed, or something like that. Any
                    > thoughts?
                    >
                    > Secondly, the precalculated version is not really any faster than the
                    > full floating-point calculation every cycle. I don't really have an
                    > opinion of which method gives more readable code. Does anyone else
                    > have any opinions on which version to keep? I think it would be
                    > possible to do away with floating point calculations entirely using
                    > the precalculated version; currently floating point is only used in
                    > the calculate_ticks function. This might be desireable so that we can
                    > remove the dependence on the +float feature, which is not marked with
                    > a "smallest version" indicator in :help +feature-list. This apparently
                    > means it is "system dependent". Does this mean float is pretty much
                    > always included, unless it is explicitly removed? How common are Vims
                    > without floating-point support? I already added use of the split()
                    > function, which was added in version 7, so this won't work on really
                    > old Vims...but do we want to support Vim 7.1 and earlier?
                    >
                  • Ben Fritz
                    ... I m sorry I don t follow. You re saying that a 4% increase in time for the progress bar, and a 20% decrease without the progress bar, is too slow ? And
                    Message 9 of 28 , Jun 5, 2010
                      On Jun 5, 6:26 pm, ZyX <zyx....@...> wrote:
                      > A small benchmark for your and mine scripts:
                      >                               user    system  cpu  total      Relative
                      > mine, no progress              93,07  10,82   99%  1:44,06    + 5%
                      > mine, only per cents and bar   95,77  10,92   99%  1:46,94    + 8%
                      > mine, %, bar and lines        125,59  14,80   99%  2:20,83    +43%
                      > 2html from vim-7.2.303         97,34   1,16   99%  1:38,64    + 0%
                      > your 2html, no progress        77,31   0,99   99%  1:18,55    -20%
                      > your 2html, with progress     100,57   1,20   99%  1:42,76    + 4%
                      >
                      > [Snip]
                      >
                      > I do not know what exactly is a problem, but your progress is too slow.
                      >

                      I'm sorry I don't follow. You're saying that a 4% increase in time for
                      the progress bar, and a 20% decrease without the progress bar, is "too
                      slow"?

                      And you're proposing changes that make it an 8% increase with the
                      progress bar, or a 5% increase without?

                      --
                      You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                      Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                    • Benjamin Fritz
                      ... Yes, I did not expect any performance gains from removing the little bit of remaining floating point, since it is just up to 100 calculations done once at
                      Message 10 of 28 , Jun 5, 2010
                        On Jun 5, 8:10 pm, ZyX <zyx....@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > It occures that the problem is not floating-point math: the attached patch
                        > removes this math but does not add any perfomance.
                        >

                        Yes, I did not expect any performance gains from removing the little
                        bit of remaining floating point, since it is just up to 100
                        calculations done once at the start and thereafter only when the
                        window changes size. It is a good idea to remove, because as you point
                        out, that amount of precision is probably unnecessary, and it would
                        just introduce another dependency.

                        > It also removes recalculating
                        > progress bar width (you just used used some generic progress bar?) and
                        > needs_redraw.

                        Yes, we did use a generic progress bar as the starting point for this.
                        However, I think it IS necessary to recalculate the progress bar
                        width. This is done so that if the user changes window sizes, the
                        progress bar will be updated accordingly. We don't want a progress bar
                        that is too big to fit in the window, or smaller than needed for
                        decent viewing. With your patch, if you start with the gvim window
                        maximized, then restore the window to a smaller size, Vim goes blank
                        until the next progress bar update, and then the progress bar is too
                        large to fit on the screen and is truncated. This is not desirable,
                        but perhaps it would acceptable if the performance gains are great
                        enough. This does not seem to be the case, because I added back in the
                        size recalculation with no noticeable performance hit.

                        The needs_redraw was done in order to allow us to call redrawstatus on
                        the correct window. :help redrawstatus says that it redraws the status
                        line for the *current window* only unless you use redrawstatus! which
                        redraws all windows. In practice, however, it does not seem to matter
                        which window we use it in. Why is this?

                        > Also, why you forbid profiling progress bar functions? It is also
                        > fixed.
                        >

                        Good catch, that's certainly something to include going forward.

                        There is a slight speed gain from your patch, however there is a
                        mistaken assumption in the way you update the progress bar. Your code
                        assumes that the progress bar will only ever update by one tick at a
                        time. Updating the progress bar without your patch calculates the
                        entire string every time, using repeat(). Your update simply adds one
                        to the colored string of spaces, and subtracts one from the uncolored.
                        This does not work if the user folds away some text and does not use
                        dynamic folding, it does not work when there are fewer than 100 lines
                        in the text to convert, and it does not work for the second use of the
                        progress bar, where there are usually fewer that 100 highlight groups
                        to process.

                        I corrected this problem and initially, the performance still seemed
                        to be improved over the previous version. However, I noticed afterward
                        that part of the patch removes the "sleep 100m" from the "processing
                        classes" step. I took this line out of the original script for a fair
                        comparison, and got the following timings, converting
                        autoload/netrw.vim (7764 lines) with dynamic folding enabled:

                        Before patch: 50 seconds
                        Patch from ZyX: 49 seconds
                        Fixed patch: 51 seconds

                        So, it looks like the patch is actually no faster, and potentially
                        slightly slower than the precalculated version.

                        I have therefore attached an updated version of my last submission,
                        which removes floating point from the calculate_ticks function, and
                        incorporates some of the other improvements from ZyX.

                        This version takes 50 seconds to convert netrw, if I comment out the
                        sleep 100 line. Do we want this line in the code? Without it, if there
                        are not very many highlight groups to process, the "processing
                        classes" bar flashes by without being seen. This happens anyway for
                        very small selections. I don't know how I feel about deliberately
                        slowing down the execution. I have left it commented out for now.

                        I am very curious about this:

                        " Note that you must use len(split) instead of len() if you want to use
                        " unicode in title
                        let self.pb_len = max_len-len(split(self.title, '\zs'))-3-4-2

                        Can someone explain the problem described in the comment a little
                        better? And why does the split on '\zs' work to fix the problem?

                        --
                        You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                        Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                        For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                      • ZyX
                        Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command», присланное в 10:59:42 06 июня 2010, Воскресенье,
                        Message 11 of 28 , Jun 6, 2010
                          Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command»,
                          присланное в 10:59:42 06 июня 2010, Воскресенье,
                          отправитель Benjamin Fritz:

                          The reason why I say that progress bar is too slow is that my script does not
                          suffer from performance decrease unless you make it redraw on each line. I will
                          add size recalculation for my script too (I removed it from your script because
                          I did not realize that while user can do nothing in vim he still can resize the
                          terminal), but I do not think that this will add any performance penalty.

                          > I am very curious about this:
                          >
                          > " Note that you must use len(split) instead of len() if you want to use
                          > " unicode in title
                          > let self.pb_len = max_len-len(split(self.title, '\zs'))-3-4-2
                          >
                          > Can someone explain the problem described in the comment a little
                          > better? And why does the split on '\zs' work to fix the problem?
                          That is because len(str) measures byte length of C string, while len(split) first
                          splits the string into a list of characters and then measures the length of
                          character list. If there are non-latin1 Unicode symbols and encoding is a
                          multibyte one then length of character list is not equal to bytes count of C
                          string.

                          Текст сообщения:
                          > On Jun 5, 8:10 pm, ZyX <zyx....@...> wrote:
                          > > It occures that the problem is not floating-point math: the attached
                          > > patch removes this math but does not add any perfomance.
                          >
                          > Yes, I did not expect any performance gains from removing the little
                          > bit of remaining floating point, since it is just up to 100
                          > calculations done once at the start and thereafter only when the
                          > window changes size. It is a good idea to remove, because as you point
                          > out, that amount of precision is probably unnecessary, and it would
                          > just introduce another dependency.
                          >
                          > > It also removes recalculating
                          > > progress bar width (you just used used some generic progress bar?) and
                          > > needs_redraw.
                          >
                          > Yes, we did use a generic progress bar as the starting point for this.
                          > However, I think it IS necessary to recalculate the progress bar
                          > width. This is done so that if the user changes window sizes, the
                          > progress bar will be updated accordingly. We don't want a progress bar
                          > that is too big to fit in the window, or smaller than needed for
                          > decent viewing. With your patch, if you start with the gvim window
                          > maximized, then restore the window to a smaller size, Vim goes blank
                          > until the next progress bar update, and then the progress bar is too
                          > large to fit on the screen and is truncated. This is not desirable,
                          > but perhaps it would acceptable if the performance gains are great
                          > enough. This does not seem to be the case, because I added back in the
                          > size recalculation with no noticeable performance hit.
                          >
                          > The needs_redraw was done in order to allow us to call redrawstatus on
                          > the correct window. :help redrawstatus says that it redraws the status
                          > line for the *current window* only unless you use redrawstatus! which
                          > redraws all windows. In practice, however, it does not seem to matter
                          > which window we use it in. Why is this?
                          >
                          > > Also, why you forbid profiling progress bar functions? It is also
                          > > fixed.
                          >
                          > Good catch, that's certainly something to include going forward.
                          >
                          > There is a slight speed gain from your patch, however there is a
                          > mistaken assumption in the way you update the progress bar. Your code
                          > assumes that the progress bar will only ever update by one tick at a
                          > time. Updating the progress bar without your patch calculates the
                          > entire string every time, using repeat(). Your update simply adds one
                          > to the colored string of spaces, and subtracts one from the uncolored.
                          > This does not work if the user folds away some text and does not use
                          > dynamic folding, it does not work when there are fewer than 100 lines
                          > in the text to convert, and it does not work for the second use of the
                          > progress bar, where there are usually fewer that 100 highlight groups
                          > to process.
                          >
                          > I corrected this problem and initially, the performance still seemed
                          > to be improved over the previous version. However, I noticed afterward
                          > that part of the patch removes the "sleep 100m" from the "processing
                          > classes" step. I took this line out of the original script for a fair
                          > comparison, and got the following timings, converting
                          > autoload/netrw.vim (7764 lines) with dynamic folding enabled:
                          >
                          > Before patch: 50 seconds
                          > Patch from ZyX: 49 seconds
                          > Fixed patch: 51 seconds
                          >
                          > So, it looks like the patch is actually no faster, and potentially
                          > slightly slower than the precalculated version.
                          >
                          > I have therefore attached an updated version of my last submission,
                          > which removes floating point from the calculate_ticks function, and
                          > incorporates some of the other improvements from ZyX.
                          >
                          > This version takes 50 seconds to convert netrw, if I comment out the
                          > sleep 100 line. Do we want this line in the code? Without it, if there
                          > are not very many highlight groups to process, the "processing
                          > classes" bar flashes by without being seen. This happens anyway for
                          > very small selections. I don't know how I feel about deliberately
                          > slowing down the execution. I have left it commented out for now.
                          >
                          > I am very curious about this:
                          >
                          > " Note that you must use len(split) instead of len() if you want to use
                          > " unicode in title
                          > let self.pb_len = max_len-len(split(self.title, '\zs'))-3-4-2
                          >
                          > Can someone explain the problem described in the comment a little
                          > better? And why does the split on '\zs' work to fix the problem?
                          >
                        • ZyX
                          Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command», присланное в 10:59:42 06 июня 2010, Воскресенье,
                          Message 12 of 28 , Jun 6, 2010
                            Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command»,
                            присланное в 10:59:42 06 июня 2010, Воскресенье,
                            отправитель Benjamin Fritz:

                            It is odd: the only problem in your script is redrawstatus which is called only
                            100 times (without styles, 109 with) (>21 seconds), while in my script
                            redrawstatus called 328 times takes less than a second.

                            Second problem with the whole 2html is buffer switching, I think you should
                            consider instead of doing constant switches, save every line in a List and only
                            after everything is finished create a new buffer and call setline(1, s:list).
                            Note that new versions of my script are faster (but not much) then your 2html
                            because I use this technique.

                            And, why do you calculate length of the title at each progressbarupdate?
                            Attached patch fixes this and the case when there is no space for progress bar.

                            Текст сообщения:
                            > On Jun 5, 8:10 pm, ZyX <zyx....@...> wrote:
                            > > It occures that the problem is not floating-point math: the attached
                            > > patch removes this math but does not add any perfomance.
                            >
                            > Yes, I did not expect any performance gains from removing the little
                            > bit of remaining floating point, since it is just up to 100
                            > calculations done once at the start and thereafter only when the
                            > window changes size. It is a good idea to remove, because as you point
                            > out, that amount of precision is probably unnecessary, and it would
                            > just introduce another dependency.
                            >
                            > > It also removes recalculating
                            > > progress bar width (you just used used some generic progress bar?) and
                            > > needs_redraw.
                            >
                            > Yes, we did use a generic progress bar as the starting point for this.
                            > However, I think it IS necessary to recalculate the progress bar
                            > width. This is done so that if the user changes window sizes, the
                            > progress bar will be updated accordingly. We don't want a progress bar
                            > that is too big to fit in the window, or smaller than needed for
                            > decent viewing. With your patch, if you start with the gvim window
                            > maximized, then restore the window to a smaller size, Vim goes blank
                            > until the next progress bar update, and then the progress bar is too
                            > large to fit on the screen and is truncated. This is not desirable,
                            > but perhaps it would acceptable if the performance gains are great
                            > enough. This does not seem to be the case, because I added back in the
                            > size recalculation with no noticeable performance hit.
                            >
                            > The needs_redraw was done in order to allow us to call redrawstatus on
                            > the correct window. :help redrawstatus says that it redraws the status
                            > line for the *current window* only unless you use redrawstatus! which
                            > redraws all windows. In practice, however, it does not seem to matter
                            > which window we use it in. Why is this?
                            >
                            > > Also, why you forbid profiling progress bar functions? It is also
                            > > fixed.
                            >
                            > Good catch, that's certainly something to include going forward.
                            >
                            > There is a slight speed gain from your patch, however there is a
                            > mistaken assumption in the way you update the progress bar. Your code
                            > assumes that the progress bar will only ever update by one tick at a
                            > time. Updating the progress bar without your patch calculates the
                            > entire string every time, using repeat(). Your update simply adds one
                            > to the colored string of spaces, and subtracts one from the uncolored.
                            > This does not work if the user folds away some text and does not use
                            > dynamic folding, it does not work when there are fewer than 100 lines
                            > in the text to convert, and it does not work for the second use of the
                            > progress bar, where there are usually fewer that 100 highlight groups
                            > to process.
                            >
                            > I corrected this problem and initially, the performance still seemed
                            > to be improved over the previous version. However, I noticed afterward
                            > that part of the patch removes the "sleep 100m" from the "processing
                            > classes" step. I took this line out of the original script for a fair
                            > comparison, and got the following timings, converting
                            > autoload/netrw.vim (7764 lines) with dynamic folding enabled:
                            >
                            > Before patch: 50 seconds
                            > Patch from ZyX: 49 seconds
                            > Fixed patch: 51 seconds
                            >
                            > So, it looks like the patch is actually no faster, and potentially
                            > slightly slower than the precalculated version.
                            >
                            > I have therefore attached an updated version of my last submission,
                            > which removes floating point from the calculate_ticks function, and
                            > incorporates some of the other improvements from ZyX.
                            >
                            > This version takes 50 seconds to convert netrw, if I comment out the
                            > sleep 100 line. Do we want this line in the code? Without it, if there
                            > are not very many highlight groups to process, the "processing
                            > classes" bar flashes by without being seen. This happens anyway for
                            > very small selections. I don't know how I feel about deliberately
                            > slowing down the execution. I have left it commented out for now.
                            >
                            > I am very curious about this:
                            >
                            > " Note that you must use len(split) instead of len() if you want to use
                            > " unicode in title
                            > let self.pb_len = max_len-len(split(self.title, '\zs'))-3-4-2
                            >
                            > Can someone explain the problem described in the comment a little
                            > better? And why does the split on '\zs' work to fix the problem?
                            >
                          • ZyX
                            Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command», присланное в 13:03:23 06 июня 2010, Воскресенье,
                            Message 13 of 28 , Jun 6, 2010
                              Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command»,
                              присланное в 13:03:23 06 июня 2010, Воскресенье,
                              отправитель ZyX:

                              Yes, buffer switching is the problem: attached patch uses my technique (save
                              everything in a list, not in a buffer) and here are the results:

                              My script:
                              1:05,09 w/o progress
                              1:08,40 ShowProgress=1
                              1:20,59 ShowProgress=2
                              Your 2html:
                              1:19,67 w/o progress
                              1:44,74 with progress
                              Patched 2html:
                              1:03,51 w/o progress
                              1:05,08 with progress

                              Apply patch to your 2html, not to previously patched version.

                              Текст сообщения:
                              > Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command»,
                              > присланное в 10:59:42 06 июня 2010, Воскресенье,
                              > отправитель Benjamin Fritz:
                              >
                              > It is odd: the only problem in your script is redrawstatus which is called
                              > only 100 times (without styles, 109 with) (>21 seconds), while in my
                              > script redrawstatus called 328 times takes less than a second.
                              >
                              > Second problem with the whole 2html is buffer switching, I think you should
                              > consider instead of doing constant switches, save every line in a List and
                              > only after everything is finished create a new buffer and call setline(1,
                              > s:list). Note that new versions of my script are faster (but not much)
                              > then your 2html because I use this technique.
                              >
                              > And, why do you calculate length of the title at each progressbarupdate?
                              > Attached patch fixes this and the case when there is no space for progress
                              > bar.
                              >
                              > Текст сообщения:
                              > > On Jun 5, 8:10 pm, ZyX <zyx....@...> wrote:
                              > > > It occures that the problem is not floating-point math: the attached
                              > > > patch removes this math but does not add any perfomance.
                              > >
                              > > Yes, I did not expect any performance gains from removing the little
                              > > bit of remaining floating point, since it is just up to 100
                              > > calculations done once at the start and thereafter only when the
                              > > window changes size. It is a good idea to remove, because as you point
                              > > out, that amount of precision is probably unnecessary, and it would
                              > > just introduce another dependency.
                              > >
                              > > > It also removes recalculating
                              > > > progress bar width (you just used used some generic progress bar?) and
                              > > > needs_redraw.
                              > >
                              > > Yes, we did use a generic progress bar as the starting point for this.
                              > > However, I think it IS necessary to recalculate the progress bar
                              > > width. This is done so that if the user changes window sizes, the
                              > > progress bar will be updated accordingly. We don't want a progress bar
                              > > that is too big to fit in the window, or smaller than needed for
                              > > decent viewing. With your patch, if you start with the gvim window
                              > > maximized, then restore the window to a smaller size, Vim goes blank
                              > > until the next progress bar update, and then the progress bar is too
                              > > large to fit on the screen and is truncated. This is not desirable,
                              > > but perhaps it would acceptable if the performance gains are great
                              > > enough. This does not seem to be the case, because I added back in the
                              > > size recalculation with no noticeable performance hit.
                              > >
                              > > The needs_redraw was done in order to allow us to call redrawstatus on
                              > > the correct window. :help redrawstatus says that it redraws the status
                              > > line for the *current window* only unless you use redrawstatus! which
                              > > redraws all windows. In practice, however, it does not seem to matter
                              > > which window we use it in. Why is this?
                              > >
                              > > > Also, why you forbid profiling progress bar functions? It is also
                              > > > fixed.
                              > >
                              > > Good catch, that's certainly something to include going forward.
                              > >
                              > > There is a slight speed gain from your patch, however there is a
                              > > mistaken assumption in the way you update the progress bar. Your code
                              > > assumes that the progress bar will only ever update by one tick at a
                              > > time. Updating the progress bar without your patch calculates the
                              > > entire string every time, using repeat(). Your update simply adds one
                              > > to the colored string of spaces, and subtracts one from the uncolored.
                              > > This does not work if the user folds away some text and does not use
                              > > dynamic folding, it does not work when there are fewer than 100 lines
                              > > in the text to convert, and it does not work for the second use of the
                              > > progress bar, where there are usually fewer that 100 highlight groups
                              > > to process.
                              > >
                              > > I corrected this problem and initially, the performance still seemed
                              > > to be improved over the previous version. However, I noticed afterward
                              > > that part of the patch removes the "sleep 100m" from the "processing
                              > > classes" step. I took this line out of the original script for a fair
                              > > comparison, and got the following timings, converting
                              > > autoload/netrw.vim (7764 lines) with dynamic folding enabled:
                              > >
                              > > Before patch: 50 seconds
                              > > Patch from ZyX: 49 seconds
                              > > Fixed patch: 51 seconds
                              > >
                              > > So, it looks like the patch is actually no faster, and potentially
                              > > slightly slower than the precalculated version.
                              > >
                              > > I have therefore attached an updated version of my last submission,
                              > > which removes floating point from the calculate_ticks function, and
                              > > incorporates some of the other improvements from ZyX.
                              > >
                              > > This version takes 50 seconds to convert netrw, if I comment out the
                              > > sleep 100 line. Do we want this line in the code? Without it, if there
                              > > are not very many highlight groups to process, the "processing
                              > > classes" bar flashes by without being seen. This happens anyway for
                              > > very small selections. I don't know how I feel about deliberately
                              > > slowing down the execution. I have left it commented out for now.
                              > >
                              > > I am very curious about this:
                              > >
                              > > " Note that you must use len(split) instead of len() if you want to use
                              > > " unicode in title
                              > > let self.pb_len = max_len-len(split(self.title, '\zs'))-3-4-2
                              > >
                              > > Can someone explain the problem described in the comment a little
                              > > better? And why does the split on '\zs' work to fix the problem?
                              >
                            • Benjamin Fritz
                              ... Very nice. This is a huge performance boost, and the times are similar with and without the progress bar even with my big 33000 line C file which I used
                              Message 14 of 28 , Jun 7, 2010
                                On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:10 AM, ZyX <zyx.vim@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Yes, buffer switching is the problem: attached patch uses my technique (save
                                > everything in a list, not in a buffer) and here are the results:
                                >
                                > My script:
                                > 1:05,09 w/o progress
                                > 1:08,40 ShowProgress=1
                                > 1:20,59 ShowProgress=2
                                > Your 2html:
                                > 1:19,67 w/o progress
                                > 1:44,74 with progress
                                > Patched 2html:
                                > 1:03,51 w/o progress
                                > 1:05,08 with progress
                                >

                                Very nice. This is a huge performance boost, and the times are similar
                                with and without the progress bar even with my big 33000 line C file
                                which I used previously.

                                I think it's about ready now. I've added another progress bar for the
                                time taken to collect fold information for dynamic folding, and
                                corrected a few minor bugs in the patch related to dynamic folding. I
                                did end up adding back in a :sleep to the class processing loop, but I
                                reduced the time it sleeps. I'm certainly open to removing this.

                                I've attached the whole file so we don't get into a "which patches do
                                I need?" quagmire.

                                --
                                You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                                Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                                For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
                              »
                              «