James Vega <james...@debian.org> wrote [2011-03-01]: > > But such redundancy isn't desirable, now is it? > > Especially given that the officially sanctioned filetype name is > markdown, not mkd as used by this script. By using mkd as the > filetype, you now lose any benefit of the other official scripts > since you're not using the same filetype name. This is one of the > reasons I try to push people to maintain their scripts within Vim > upstream. In an ideal world, the vim-scripts package wouldn't exist.
That's indeed a reasonable position. > Is there anything this syntax script supports that the official one > doesn't? If so, it probably makes better sense to try and merge that > functionality into the official script. At least one thing: folding. I will investigate further though. -- Denis Laxalde -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
