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

Re: Dear Bram

Expand Messages
  • Ben Schmidt
    ... I don t think anybody has refused the idea, and I don t think anybody wants to keep Vim in the 1970s. We all want this. In fact, people who don t want this
    Message 1 of 112 , Feb 25, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      > So basically backward compatibility and memory efficiency are what
      > hold vim back in 1970. You made a lot of good points and reasons for
      > it to be so, but I'm always sad when good ideas are refused just
      > because of old scenarios.

      I don't think anybody has refused the idea, and I don't think anybody
      wants to keep Vim in the 1970s. We all want this. In fact, people who
      don't want this probably wouldn't get involved in the discussion--unless
      we looked like we were going to introduce some horribly backwardly
      incompatible change that would affect them nastily.

      So I would encourage you not to view this discussion as opposition to
      the idea. Quite the reverse. This discussion is actually an important
      part of making this idea happen. We need to discuss these things so we
      can do it the best way possible, without *needlessly* breaking backward
      compatibility, without *needlessly* or *significantly* lowering
      efficiency, and without *unnecessarily* wasting people's time.

      > That said, I think there is a compromise.

      Unless you saw something that I didn't see, I don't think there is any
      resistance that necessitates a compromise.

      I think it goes without saying that we'll need some kind of
      compatibility mode, whether it's by means of a +feature, an 'option', or
      just some carefully thought-out behaviours. Some of these issues have
      already been raised and solutions brainstormed (including your recent
      suggestions, as well as in earlier mails by me and others).

      > Of course there's still all the issues discussed above to solve, but
      > at least I think with this proposal things we'll get less resistance
      > ;)

      As I said, I don't think there is any resistance to the idea. We're just
      discussing how to do it. As someone suggested earlier, it would be best
      to discuss and draft some documentation for this stuff before doing the
      hard implementation work. Having something solid will help, and a
      checklist of issues/concerns along with their solutions.

      So, to move it to the next stage, is anyone in a position to volunteer
      to write up a more specific design (which probably needs to be written
      with reference both to this email discussion and the Vim source code)?

      Also, is anyone in a position to volunteer to help with implementation
      once we have a design?

      Ben.



      --
      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
    • Paul "LeoNerd" Evans
      On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 20:49:40 +0200 ... pangoterm, or continue prodding at xterm until it does the right thing :) Or provoke your preferred terminal s author
      Message 112 of 112 , Nov 6, 2014
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 20:49:40 +0200
        Christian Brabandt <cblists@...> wrote:

        > > In theory, yes. In practice, last time I looked xterm didn't do it
        > > quite right yet.
        > >
        > > The setting is called modifyOtherKeys but the problem with is was
        > > that it either modifies too little (leaving such pairs as Ctrl-a and
        > > Ctrl-Shift-A indistinct), or modifies too much (using CSI u encoding
        > > for a plain Ctrl-c keypress, thus meaning termios doesn't recognise
        > > it and send a SIGTERM). I have re-raised this with Thomas just now;
        > > I'll see if we can get to a point where it's just in the middle, and
        > > therefore right.
        >
        > So what would be the preferred way to actually see those keys?
        > Installing pangoterm?

        pangoterm, or continue prodding at xterm until it does the right
        thing :)

        Or provoke your preferred terminal's author into fixing it.

        More consensus among terminals => better.

        --
        Paul "LeoNerd" Evans

        leonerd@...
        http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ | https://metacpan.org/author/PEVANS
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.