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

Re: [PATCH] add 'cinoption' "E" to correctly indent enum for Java code

Expand Messages
  • Bram Moolenaar
    ... Thanks, tests are good. However, it seems the test passes without your patch. static is already checked for and skipped above the lines you insert.
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 5, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hong Xu wrote:

      > On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:16:48 AM UTC-8, Lech Lorens wrote:
      > > Wouldn't it be better to use the existing 'cinoptions' entry jN? It's
      > >
      > > related to Java...
      > >
      >
      > This is also what I am hesitating at. But people who need the original 'j' option may not need this option (and vice versa) for the use of their languages (Javascript?), so I finally splitted them.
      > >
      > >
      > > BTW, in the past I made a number of modifications to the indenting
      > >
      > > code. It was like treading on a mine field (lots of things I could
      > >
      > > break). Would you, please, also include a test case for your
      > >
      > > functionality so that the next person that modifies get_c_indent()
      > >
      > > does not break what you've achieved?
      > >
      > >
      >
      > Thanks for the reminder. I have included the test case in the new
      > attached patch.

      Thanks, tests are good. However, it seems the test passes without your
      patch.

      "static" is already checked for and skipped above the lines you insert.
      Without a flag to enable this. I don't see much of a problem also
      skipping the public/private/protected attributes without a flag.

      Actually, what really matters is the check for "=". I think it should
      be ignored for Java, the "j" flag.



      --
      How To Keep A Healthy Level Of Insanity:
      11. Specify that your drive-through order is "to go".

      /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
      /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
      \\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
      \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///

      --
      --
      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

      ---
      You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
      To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
      For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
    • Hong Xu
      ... I tried without the patch, but they cannot pass on my computer... This is weird. ... We do need the second check inside the loop, since people may write
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 5, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mar 5, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...> wrote:

        >
        > Hong Xu wrote:
        >
        >> On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:16:48 AM UTC-8, Lech Lorens wrote:
        >>> Wouldn't it be better to use the existing 'cinoptions' entry jN? It's
        >>>
        >>> related to Java...
        >>
        >> This is also what I am hesitating at. But people who need the original 'j' option may not need this option (and vice versa) for the use of their languages (Javascript?), so I finally splitted them.
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> BTW, in the past I made a number of modifications to the indenting
        >>>
        >>> code. It was like treading on a mine field (lots of things I could
        >>>
        >>> break). Would you, please, also include a test case for your
        >>>
        >>> functionality so that the next person that modifies get_c_indent()
        >>>
        >>> does not break what you've achieved?
        >>
        >> Thanks for the reminder. I have included the test case in the new
        >> attached patch.
        >
        > Thanks, tests are good. However, it seems the test passes without your
        > patch.
        >

        I tried without the patch, but they cannot pass on my computer... This
        is weird.

        > "static" is already checked for and skipped above the lines you insert.
        > Without a flag to enable this. I don't see much of a problem also
        > skipping the public/private/protected attributes without a flag.
        >

        We do need the second check inside the loop, since people may write either:

        public static enum
        static public enum


        Yes, I do agree with you about the flag to enable this. We really don't
        need any flags to enable this since nothing is messed up with this
        additional feature. I attached a new patch here, with updated code and
        an updated test.

        > Actually, what really matters is the check for "=". I think it should
        > be ignored for Java, the "j" flag.

        I tried to add a flag here, but it seems the 'J' option is broken in
        this way (test3 would fail).


        Thanks,
        Hong

        --
        --
        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

        ---
        You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
        To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
        For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
      • Bram Moolenaar
        ... Right, this works like an OR, not an AND. I ll include it and clean it up a bit. I ll add a function to check if a word follows, that is done in many
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 7, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hong Xu wrote:

          > On Mar 5, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...> wrote:
          >
          > >
          > > Hong Xu wrote:
          > >
          > >> On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:16:48 AM UTC-8, Lech Lorens wrote:
          > >>> Wouldn't it be better to use the existing 'cinoptions' entry jN? It's
          > >>>
          > >>> related to Java...
          > >>
          > >> This is also what I am hesitating at. But people who need the original 'j' option may not need this option (and vice versa) for the use of their languages (Javascript?), so I finally splitted them.
          > >>>
          > >>>
          > >>> BTW, in the past I made a number of modifications to the indenting
          > >>>
          > >>> code. It was like treading on a mine field (lots of things I could
          > >>>
          > >>> break). Would you, please, also include a test case for your
          > >>>
          > >>> functionality so that the next person that modifies get_c_indent()
          > >>>
          > >>> does not break what you've achieved?
          > >>
          > >> Thanks for the reminder. I have included the test case in the new
          > >> attached patch.
          > >
          > > Thanks, tests are good. However, it seems the test passes without your
          > > patch.
          > >
          >
          > I tried without the patch, but they cannot pass on my computer... This
          > is weird.
          >
          > > "static" is already checked for and skipped above the lines you insert.
          > > Without a flag to enable this. I don't see much of a problem also
          > > skipping the public/private/protected attributes without a flag.
          > >
          >
          > We do need the second check inside the loop, since people may write either:
          >
          > public static enum
          > static public enum
          >
          >
          > Yes, I do agree with you about the flag to enable this. We really don't
          > need any flags to enable this since nothing is messed up with this
          > additional feature. I attached a new patch here, with updated code and
          > an updated test.
          >
          > > Actually, what really matters is the check for "=". I think it should
          > > be ignored for Java, the "j" flag.
          >
          > I tried to add a flag here, but it seems the 'J' option is broken in
          > this way (test3 would fail).

          Right, this works like an OR, not an AND.

          I'll include it and clean it up a bit. I'll add a function to check if
          a word follows, that is done in many places.

          --
          How To Keep A Healthy Level Of Insanity:
          18. When leaving the zoo, start running towards the parking lot,
          yelling "run for your lives, they're loose!!"

          /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
          /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
          \\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
          \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///

          --
          --
          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

          ---
          You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
          To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
          For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.