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

Re: Vim syntax file should not require interpreter support to highlight :{interp}<

Expand Messages
  • LCD 47
    ... [...] +1 for this. People routinely edit files that only make sense (and will only ever run) on remote servers. There are legitimate situations where
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 20, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On 20 August 2013, Ingo Karkat <swdev@...> wrote:
      > On 13-Aug-2013 18:46 +0200, ZyX wrote:
      >
      > > I see that all g:vimsyn_embed flags say things like ?embed ? **(but
      > > only if vim supports it)**?. This is ridiculous: you don?t have to
      > > have vim lua support to code in lua and have syntax highlighting;
      > > you specifically don?t have to have vim lua support to write or
      > > watch lua<<EOF sections; and it is completely possible for oneself
      > > to want to review {interp}<<EOF sections in foreign plugins before
      > > deciding whether he needs to obtain Vim with {interp} support or
      > > (my case) to watch correct highlighting of his own vimrc on machine
      > > without specific interpreter support.
      > >
      > > I thus see no reason for using `(g:vimsyn_embed =~ 'p' &&
      > > has("perl"))` checks without any option to always highlight embedded
      > > perl code. If the intention is to indicate that interpreter is not
      > > supported then the only place where `has("perl")` should be present
      > > is the section where `g:vimsyn_embed` default value is computed:
      > > those (almost every vim user) who do not set `g:vimsyn_embed` will
      > > not notice any change in behavior, those who care will always
      > > receive correct highlighting.
      >
      > I came to the same conclusion: While it is noble that the Vim syntax
      > plugin notifies the user that the used script interpreter is not
      > available in the current editor, having huge blocks of red error
      > highlighting is certainly overdoing it and counterproductive, because,
      > as we all know, reality isn't either black or white, and situations
      > like these do happen.
      [...]

      +1 for this. People routinely edit files that only make sense (and
      will only ever run) on remote servers. There are legitimate situations
      where editing a file has nothing to do with actually running it.

      /lcd

      --
      --
      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.
    • Charles Campbell
      ... Except, if its embedded in vimscript, then it is intended to be executed by vim. -- -- You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. Do not
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 21, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        LCD 47 wrote:
        > ..snip..
        > +1 for this. People routinely edit files that only make sense (and
        > will only ever run) on remote servers. There are legitimate situations
        > where editing a file has nothing to do with actually running it.
        >
        Except, if its embedded in vimscript, then it is intended to be executed
        by vim.

        --
        --
        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.
      • James McCoy
        On Aug 21, 2013 1:42 PM, Charles Campbell ... by vim. But not necessarily *this* Vim, which is the point. The syntax is valid
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 21, 2013
        • 0 Attachment


          On Aug 21, 2013 1:42 PM, "Charles Campbell" <Charles.E.Campbell@...> wrote:
          >
          > LCD 47 wrote:
          >>
          >> ..snip..
          >>
          >>      +1 for this.  People routinely edit files that only make sense (and
          >> will only ever run) on remote servers.  There are legitimate situations
          >> where editing a file has nothing to do with actually running it.
          >>
          > Except, if its embedded in vimscript, then it is intended to be executed by vim.

          But not necessarily *this* Vim, which is the point. The syntax is valid regardless of whether this Vim has been built to execute the syntax.

          --
          --
          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.
        • Charles Campbell
          ... Which again means: the writer of the script has no intention of testing it at the current time. Bad idea. Nonetheless, I ve have posted a new version at
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 21, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            James McCoy wrote:
            >
            >
            > On Aug 21, 2013 1:42 PM, "Charles Campbell"
            > <Charles.E.Campbell@... <mailto:Charles.E.Campbell@...>> wrote:
            > >
            > > LCD 47 wrote:
            > >>
            > >> ..snip..
            > >>
            > >> +1 for this. People routinely edit files that only make sense
            > (and
            > >> will only ever run) on remote servers. There are legitimate situations
            > >> where editing a file has nothing to do with actually running it.
            > >>
            > > Except, if its embedded in vimscript, then it is intended to be
            > executed by vim.
            >
            > But not necessarily *this* Vim, which is the point. The syntax is
            > valid regardless of whether this Vim has been built to execute the syntax.
            >
            >
            Which again means: the writer of the script has no intention of testing
            it at the current time. Bad idea.

            Nonetheless, I've have posted a new version at my website and given a
            copy to Bram several days ago.

            --
            --
            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.
          • Peter Prohaska
            On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Charles Campbell ... Which again is not if someone asks you for a quick review of the code. -- -- You received this message
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 22, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Charles Campbell
              <Charles.E.Campbell@...> wrote:
              > James McCoy wrote:
              >
              >>
              >>
              >> On Aug 21, 2013 1:42 PM, "Charles Campbell" <Charles.E.Campbell@...
              >> <mailto:Charles.E.Campbell@...>> wrote:
              >> >
              >> > LCD 47 wrote:
              >> >>
              >> >> ..snip..
              >> >>
              >> >> +1 for this. People routinely edit files that only make sense
              >> >> (and
              >> >> will only ever run) on remote servers. There are legitimate situations
              >> >> where editing a file has nothing to do with actually running it.
              >> >>
              >> > Except, if its embedded in vimscript, then it is intended to be executed
              >> > by vim.
              >>
              >> But not necessarily *this* Vim, which is the point. The syntax is valid
              >> regardless of whether this Vim has been built to execute the syntax.
              >>
              >>
              > Which again means: the writer of the script has no intention of testing it
              > at the current time. Bad idea.

              Which again is not if someone asks you for a quick review of the code.

              --
              --
              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.