Re: Patch 7.1.306
On 04/06/08 10:59, Bram Moolenaar wrote: Patch 7.1.306 Problem:Some Unicode characters are handled like word characters while they are symbols. Solution: Adjust the table for Unicode classification. Files:src/mbyte.c After applying patches 7.1.306 to 7.1.308 (of which I haven't yet received the latter two by email) if_python.c: In function ‘VimToPython’: if_python.c:1157: warning: format ‘%f’ expects type ‘double’, but argument 3 has type ‘long int’ also, one of 37 hunks of 7.1.307 failed to patch in the floating point version but on eyeball inspection it was already included, though with an additional comment in the middle (hunk #10 at 1130, bracketed between #ifdef FEAT_FLOAT and #endif). Bram, don't you think that floating point feature could now be made a part of the standard sources? Of course, if anyone gets cold feet, it can still be disabled at compile-time by commenting away line 384 of feature.h (to /* #define FEAT_FLOAT */ or similar) Best regards, Tony. -- ... so long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrranize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. -- Voltarine de Cleyre --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Patch 7.1.306
Tony Mechelynck wrote: On 04/06/08 10:59, Bram Moolenaar wrote: Patch 7.1.306 Problem:Some Unicode characters are handled like word characters while they are symbols. Solution: Adjust the table for Unicode classification. Files: src/mbyte.c After applying patches 7.1.306 to 7.1.308 (of which I haven't yet received the latter two by email) if_python.c: In function 'VimToPython': if_python.c:1157: warning: format '%f' expects type 'double', but argument 3 has type 'long int' Are you sure you patched OK? I see: sprintf(buf, %f, our_tv-vval.v_float); That is clearly a double argument. also, one of 37 hunks of 7.1.307 failed to patch in the floating point version but on eyeball inspection it was already included, though with an additional comment in the middle (hunk #10 at 1130, bracketed between #ifdef FEAT_FLOAT and #endif). Bram, don't you think that floating point feature could now be made a part of the standard sources? Of course, if anyone gets cold feet, it can still be disabled at compile-time by commenting away line 384 of feature.h (to /* #define FEAT_FLOAT */ or similar) The FEAT_FLOAT parts in if_python shouldn't hurt, since FEAT_FLOAT isn't yet defined anywhere. Unless you are using the experimental floating point patch, but then it should work (if you avoid patching the same thing twice). I still have a few fixes in the pipeline for the floating point patch. -- Imagine a world without hypothetical situations. /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ ///sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org/// \\\help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org/// --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Floating point syntax
Hi, folks,
The earlier thread where Bram asked for comments on floating point
syntax, after quite a few suggestions were made and rejected for
compatibility reasons, petered out. However, two proposals were made
that I think had merit, and I wonder if people have additional comment
on them, and perhaps may see them if part of a new thread!
The first proposal was mine:
- I pointed out that there is actually possibly ambiguity in the current
syntax unless a float is required to have a decimal point or exponent,
as 123.456 could mean float 123.456 or float 123 (123.0) concatenated
with integer 456. If the requirement is added, the ambiguity is
removed, but 123 is invalid, which is a bit of a shame.
- I proposed an alternative syntax that I prefer and I think is likely
to be more robust in the long run: enclosing floats in curly braces.
E.g. {123.456}. Specifically, a set of curly braces would be taken to
represent a float if and only if it is (1) not preceded by a valid
variable name character and (2) contains a valid float. Nobody came up
with any reason this would not work.
The second was a proposal to represent floats as numbers with decimal
points but no additional punctuation which was implicit in this report
from Ilya Bobir:
- I did a search for vim scripts that use concatenation operation
between two numbers without interleaving space. It appears that
Google Code Search was able to find only 39 matches and all were
false positives.
Nobody gave any reply to the message.
I would like to note, though, that this doesn't solve the problem for
exponent notation. However, I suspect a search of vim scripts containing
numbers of that form would yield even less results, though I have not
tried it. The search also doesn't take into account expressions that may
be built dynamically in vim scripts rather than being hard coded, but
again, I doubt many if any of these exist.
I personally would prefer either of these syntaxes to the notation with
the ampersand.
Do people have further comments/thoughts on this? Is Bram still
interested in hearing them?
The earlier thread which contains more details can be read here:
http://groups.google.com/group/vim_dev/browse_thread/thread/1c8806e536ec12cd
The relevant posts are at the end. The last 7 or so, which happen to
nicely form the second page of posts at present.
Ben.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message from the vim_dev maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Patch to allow ctermfg or bg values as #rrggbb
On Dec 21 2007, 6:44 am, Matt Wozniski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, I'd appreciate comments. The reworked patch can be found: http://www.cs.drexel.edu/~mjw452/ctermrgb-src.diff (source, against SVN) http://www.cs.drexel.edu/~mjw452/ctermrgb-runtime.diff (runtime, against latest AAP) I have tried your patches on recent vim71 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). They applied with few small corrections. I would post the fix, but googlegroups does not allow me include file :(. When trying to figure out, how properly publish hexhex2nr I got lost, since originally it seemed like FEAT_SYN_HL is needed, but later on it seemed that in fact FEAT_EVAL might be sufficient to trigger scheme file loading, even though help clearly says that +syntax is required. Then I used the regex script posted here: http://www.cs.drexel.edu/~mjw452/ctermrgbify-scheme.vim to convert my favorite scheme (darkblue). With small tweak of background color (which was too light on xterm-256color compared to gVim running on Windows) I got almost the same coloring. So far so good. Then I found out that it is possible to use RGBified scheme with this script: http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1809 and it works the same way as your patch (well, on the first look). So now I wonder, if it is worthy the hassle of patching, when in fact, the same thing could be done just by script. Also it seems that the point raised here about different colors for 16 and 256 is valid. For example on darkblue-rgb I had to make blue background slightly darker, so it will match black on 256 approximation rather than blue (which was too blue to my likings.). Richard --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Floating point syntax
Ben Schmidt wrote:
The earlier thread where Bram asked for comments on floating point
syntax, after quite a few suggestions were made and rejected for
compatibility reasons, petered out. However, two proposals were made
that I think had merit, and I wonder if people have additional comment
on them, and perhaps may see them if part of a new thread!
The first proposal was mine:
- I pointed out that there is actually possibly ambiguity in the current
syntax unless a float is required to have a decimal point or exponent,
as 123.456 could mean float 123.456 or float 123 (123.0) concatenated
with integer 456. If the requirement is added, the ambiguity is
removed, but 123 is invalid, which is a bit of a shame.
The . operator only works on strings. There is no automatic
conversion of a float to a string, so a . after a float is invalid.
And with a single . it's part of the float, no matter what follows.
- I proposed an alternative syntax that I prefer and I think is likely
to be more robust in the long run: enclosing floats in curly braces.
E.g. {123.456}. Specifically, a set of curly braces would be taken to
represent a float if and only if it is (1) not preceded by a valid
variable name character and (2) contains a valid float. Nobody came up
with any reason this would not work.
It would work, but I think 123.456 looks better than {123.456}. And we
might want to use {} for something else (if possible, since it's already
used for curly-braces-names).
The second was a proposal to represent floats as numbers with decimal
points but no additional punctuation which was implicit in this report
from Ilya Bobir:
- I did a search for vim scripts that use concatenation operation
between two numbers without interleaving space. It appears that
Google Code Search was able to find only 39 matches and all were
false positives.
Nobody gave any reply to the message.
I wonder how you do that search. And if you manage to come up with the
right pattern, what the number of matches actually means.
I would like to note, though, that this doesn't solve the problem for
exponent notation. However, I suspect a search of vim scripts containing
numbers of that form would yield even less results, though I have not
tried it. The search also doesn't take into account expressions that may
be built dynamically in vim scripts rather than being hard coded, but
again, I doubt many if any of these exist.
I personally would prefer either of these syntaxes to the notation with
the ampersand.
Do people have further comments/thoughts on this? Is Bram still
interested in hearing them?
Yes, but most people appear to be OK with the 123.456 syntax. Thus if
you want something else, you need to come up with good arguments.
The earlier thread which contains more details can be read here:
http://groups.google.com/group/vim_dev/browse_thread/thread/1c8806e536ec12cd
The relevant posts are at the end. The last 7 or so, which happen to
nicely form the second page of posts at present.
--
It doesn't really matter what you are able to do if you don't do it.
(Bram Moolenaar)
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
///sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org///
\\\help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org///
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message from the vim_dev maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Floating point syntax
Bram Moolenaar wrote: [...] The second was a proposal to represent floats as numbers with decimal points but no additional punctuation which was implicit in this report from Ilya Bobir: - I did a search for vim scripts that use concatenation operation between two numbers without interleaving space. It appears that Google Code Search was able to find only 39 matches and all were false positives. Nobody gave any reply to the message. I wonder how you do that search. I've explained how I did the search in my email on that thread. Probably you missed it, so I include this email here. Here it goes: Ilya Bobir wrote: Bram Moolenaar wrote: [...] I would still like feedback on the format of floating point numbers: 123.456 1.23e-3 I did a search for vim scripts that use concatenation operation between two numbers without interleaving space. It appears that Google Code Search was able to find only 39 matches and all where false positives. Here is the query: http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=ruq=+lang:vim+%5E%5Cs*%5B%5E%22%5C+%5D(%22(%5C%5C.%7C%5B%5E%22%5D)*%22%7C%27%5B%5E%27%5D*%27%7C%5B%5E%22%5D)*%5Cs%5Cd%2B%5C.%5Cd%2B%5Cs+-menustart=30sa=N And here is a regex I've used (along with explanations). Maybe someone will double check to make sure I did not mistake. lang:vim | Vim script language. ^\s*[^\ ] | In order to exclude comments the line should | start with anything but . ( | Catches different kind of strings. ( \\. | [^] )* | Double quoted strings along with escapes | inside the string. | ' [^']* '| Single quoted strings. | [^] | All the rest is OK. And there maybe some | staff preceding the digits. )* | \s\d+\.\d+\s | A pattern that I was looking for - two numbers | concatenated without an interleaving space | that are not part of a longer sequence. -menu | menu command uses dot separated numbers to set | priority. There are plenty of them and all | are false positives, so remove all lines with | menu string in them. If something is hard to understand, please ask, I'll try to explain another way. English is not my native language and sometimes I really have no clue whether what I write is understandable at all =) And if you manage to come up with the right pattern, what the number of matches actually means. The number of matches is the number of lines that have two numbers concatenated without interleaving spaces. A real match would mean that adding a common syntax for floats into Vim script would break a script with the match. It appeared that all 39 matches was false positives meaning that all of them was really something else and was matched only because the pattern I've used it not perfect. I checked all 39 matches by hand. You can easily see them by following a link in my original e-mail that I've quoted above. To sum it up, it appears that among all the vim scripts that are indexed by Google there are none that use the common float syntax to concatenate two numbers. This means using the common syntax for floats will not break any of these scripts. There still is a chance that some scripts use dynamically generated expressions that have two numbers concatenated without interleaving spaces but it is unlikely as one does not need a concatenation operation to concatenate numbers when building a dynamic expression - you can just put them in the result side by side. Ben Schmidt wrote: I would like to note, though, that this doesn't solve the problem for exponent notation. However, I suspect a search of vim scripts containing numbers of that form would yield even less results, though I have not tried it. The search also doesn't take into account expressions that may be built dynamically in vim scripts rather than being hard coded, but again, I doubt many if any of these exist. If there are no scripts that use two numbers with a dot in between without interleaving spaces then it follows that there are none that have these kind of numbers with an exponent appended. And it means that if the float syntax will be smart enough to tell a float without an exponent from a concatenation then adding an exponent as a suffix will not introduce any ambiguity. Am I missing something? Ilya Bobir --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Floating point syntax
On 2008-06-04, Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Schmidt wrote: The second was a proposal to represent floats as numbers with decimal points but no additional punctuation which was implicit in this report from Ilya Bobir: - I did a search for vim scripts that use concatenation operation between two numbers without interleaving space. It appears that Google Code Search was able to find only 39 matches and all were false positives. Nobody gave any reply to the message. I personally would prefer either of these syntaxes to the notation with the ampersand. Do people have further comments/thoughts on this? Is Bram still interested in hearing them? Yes, but most people appear to be OK with the 123.456 syntax. Thus if you want something else, you need to come up with good arguments. I've refrained from commenting so far because I haven't had anything to contribute other than that I really prefer to have floating-point numbers that look like floating point numbers. Any other notation just looks silly. In addition, when putting floating-point numbers in a script, or when copying and pasting them into a vim expression, I don't want to have to remember to adorn them with any special notation, or to have to think about whether the adornment is needed in that context. The prefix was thought to be needed to avoid breaking scripts that used . to concatenate two strings of digits. Ilya has demonstrated that, at least for publicly accessible scripts, this is not a problem. Using anything but the standard notation for floating-point numbers is going to lead to user confusion and errors. If these numbers were a new thing that had to be learned by everyone, the notation wouldn't matter as much. As it is, everyone knows how a floating-point number is represented in ASCII, so most people will use what they already know to write floating-point expressions in vim. It won't occur to them that vim uses a unique notation. For vim to depart from the conventional notation is aesthetically unpleasing, is going to cause problems, and at this point, seems to lack justification. My $0.02. Regards, Gary --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Floating point syntax
Ilya Bobir wrote:
Bram Moolenaar wrote:
[...]
The second was a proposal to represent floats as numbers with decimal
points but no additional punctuation which was implicit in this report
from Ilya Bobir:
- I did a search for vim scripts that use concatenation operation
between two numbers without interleaving space. It appears that
Google Code Search was able to find only 39 matches and all were
false positives.
Nobody gave any reply to the message.
I wonder how you do that search.
I've explained how I did the search in my email on that thread.
Probably you missed it, so I include this email here. Here it goes:
Ilya Bobir wrote:
Bram Moolenaar wrote:
[...]
I would still like feedback on the format of floating point numbers:
123.456
1.23e-3
I did a search for vim scripts that use concatenation operation between two
numbers without interleaving space. It appears that Google Code Search was
able to find only 39 matches and all where false positives.
Here is the query:
http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=ruq=+lang:vim+%5E%5Cs*%5B%5E%22%5C+%5D(%22(%5C%5C.%7C%5B%5E%22%5D)*%22%7C%27%5B%5E%27%5D*%27%7C%5B%5E%22%5D)*%5Cs%5Cd%2B%5C.%5Cd%2B%5Cs+-menustart=30sa=N
And here is a regex I've used (along with explanations). Maybe someone will
double check to make sure I did not mistake.
lang:vim | Vim script language.
^\s*[^\ ] | In order to exclude comments the line should
| start with anything but .
( | Catches different kind of strings.
( \\. | [^] )* | Double quoted strings along with escapes
| inside the string.
| ' [^']* '| Single quoted strings.
| [^] | All the rest is OK. And there maybe some
| staff preceding the digits.
)* |
\s\d+\.\d+\s | A pattern that I was looking for - two numbers
| concatenated without an interleaving space
| that are not part of a longer sequence.
-menu | menu command uses dot separated numbers to set
| priority. There are plenty of them and all
| are false positives, so remove all lines with
| menu string in them.
If something is hard to understand, please ask, I'll try to explain
another way. English is not my native language and sometimes I really
have no clue whether what I write is understandable at all =)
It's not perfect and Google code search certainly doesn't contain every
Vim script, but it's an indication.
And if you manage to come up with the
right pattern, what the number of matches actually means.
The number of matches is the number of lines that have two numbers
concatenated without interleaving spaces. A real match would mean that
adding a common syntax for floats into Vim script would break a script
with the match.
I meant: Since Google code search contains only a subset of all the Vim
scripts, what does it mean not to find a text string there that looks
like a floating point number? There might be one very important Vim
script that breaks that isn't in Google code search.
[...]
Anyway, here is a patch to accept plain floating point numbers. Goes on
top of the previous floating point patch. Give it a try and find out if
any of your scripts break.
*** ../vim-7.1.311/src/eval.c Thu May 29 21:46:10 2008
--- src/eval.c Wed Jun 4 22:41:20 2008
***
*** 4600,4613
case '7':
case '8':
case '9':
! vim_str2nr(*arg, NULL, len, TRUE, TRUE, n, NULL);
! *arg += len;
! if (evaluate)
{
! rettv-v_type = VAR_NUMBER;
! rettv-vval.v_number = n;
}
break;
/*
* String constant: string.
--- 4799,4847
case '7':
case '8':
case '9':
! {
! #ifdef FEAT_FLOAT
! char_u *p = skipdigits(*arg + 1);
! intget_float = FALSE;
!
! /* We accept a float when the format matches
!* [0-9]\+\.[0-9]\+\([eE][+-]\?[0-9]\+\)\?. This is very
!* strict to avoid backwards compatibility problems. */
! if (p[0] == '.' vim_isdigit(p[1]))
! {
! get_float = TRUE;
! p = skipdigits(p + 2);
! if (*p == 'e' || *p == 'E')
! {
! ++p;
! if (*p == '-' || *p == '+')
! ++p;
! if (!vim_isdigit(*p))
! get_float = FALSE;
! else
!
Re: Floating point syntax
Yes, but most people appear to be OK with the 123.456 syntax. Thus if you want something else, you need to come up with good arguments. I still haven't seen any good arguments why an editor needs floating point numbers at all, other than hey, it can be done without breaking old scripts with just slightly awkward syntax :-) Nico --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: How to start for newbie
Hello, I have recently started to work on the regular expression code ... In short, last summer two students have implemented a new version of the regular expression engine. However, it is not yet included in the main source code of Vim. As part of Google Summer of Code, my project deals with including the new version of the regexp engine into vim, testing it and making sure it does not break anything. If you're still interested, I have a couple of notes on the implementation of regexps at http://code.google.com/p/vim-soc2008-regexp/wiki/Regexp_Interface_Both_Engines . You are more than welcome to also browse through the sources in the project (just go to the Source tab). Also, a very good article about regular expressions and their efficient implementation is by Russ Cox, at http://swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/regexp1.html . I really recommend reading this article, it is very clear and concise. It describes the non-deterministic finite automata (NFA) method of dealing with regexps. Cheers, Andrei On May 28, 6:33 pm, Guang Yang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to start read vim source code from regular expression, but I found it really hard for a newbie. Do you have any suggestion about how to start? I think it is better we make this post a guideline for all the people who want to contribute this gread project. _ Discover the new Windows Vistahttp://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vistamkt=en-USform=QBRE --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Patch 7.1.306
On Wed 4-Jun-08 3:59am -0600, Bram Moolenaar wrote: Patch 7.1.306 I also found 307-311 on the ftp site. After deleting from the patches those portions applicable to runtime files (such as optwin.vim), they built fine. I then turned to floating point (which I last updated at 305). Only if_python.c and version.c needed to be updated (or so I thought). After the patch to if_python.c failed completely, version.c patched fine. On further inspection I see that the standard if_python.c is already patched for floating point. So I just copied it and my floating point versions of vim and gvim are at 311. Since eval.c didn't change, I didn't need to apply John Beckett's fp patch - will that be included? I didn't have any of Tony's problems. I agree that it would be great to have fp in the main distribution. -- Best regards, Bill --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Floating point syntax
On Wed 4-Jun-08 3:42pm -0600, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Anyway, here is a patch to accept plain floating point numbers. Goes on
top of the previous floating point patch. Give it a try and find out if
any of your scripts break.
My eval.c is the current release patched by both your latest
and John Beckett's fix. You new patch fails with:
vim\vimfp patch -b -p 0 -i Brams-may_not_work_with_jb.diff
patching file src/eval.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 4799.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/eval.c.rej
I'm not great at reading patch files, but my eval.c does
contain:
===
case '7':
case '8':
case '9':
vim_str2nr(*arg, NULL, len, TRUE, TRUE, n, NULL);
*arg += len;
if (evaluate)
{
rettv-v_type = VAR_NUMBER;
rettv-vval.v_number = n;
}
break;
/*
* String constant: string.
===
So it looks like - to me - that you patch should patch.
--
Best regards,
Bill
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message from the vim_dev maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
udevrules filetype detection
On my system, udev rules files are detected as filetype=hog rather than filetype=udevrules. I suggest the following patch: *** ../vim71/runtime/filetype.vim Wed Jun 4 13:50:01 2008 --- runtime/filetype.vimThu Jun 5 05:06:49 2008 *** *** 1783,1788 --- 1783,1791 SNMP MIB files au BufNewFile,BufRead *.mib,*.my setf mib + Udev rules (must be before Snort *.rules) + au BufNewFile,BufRead /etc/udev/rules.d/*.rules setf udevrules + Snort Configuration au BufNewFile,BufRead *.hog,snort.conf,vision.conf setf hog au BufNewFile,BufRead *.rulescall s:FTRules() *** *** 2009,2017 Udev conf au BufNewFile,BufRead /etc/udev/udev.confsetf udevconf - Udev rules - au BufNewFile,BufRead /etc/udev/rules.d/*.rules setf udevrules - Udev permissions au BufNewFile,BufRead /etc/udev/permissions.d/*.permissions setf udevperm --- 2012,2017 Best regards, Tony. -- Very few profundities can be expressed in less than 80 characters. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
