Re: Packages

2016-03-03 Thread Ben Fritz 
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 2:02:52 PM UTC-6, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> Matthew Desjardins wrote:
> 
> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 9:20:00 AM UTC-5, Matthew Desjardins wrote:
> > > There have been a couple of people posting about how the new package 
> > > feature can, in its current state, replace Pathogen.
> > > 
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_dev/BN5DuHpzzBc/OjoGDSqeEQAJ
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_use/QHqDKtdqUkk/PY7WydFdAQAJ
> > > 
> > > Could someone explain how?  It doesn't seem to work for plugins that
> > > don't have a "plugin" directory, and as far as I can tell from the
> > > source it's not supposed to, either.
> > > 
> > > Why was this decision made to only support plugins with a "plugin"
> > > directory?
> > 
> > If I'm understanding 7.4.1480 correctly, if something is just a syntax
> > file, for example, it has to go under "opts" and loaded manually with
> > ":packadd"?
> 
> Either that or create an empty plugin file.
> 
> I realize several people who have previously been using Pathogen are
> confused.  Perhaps we can just put every directory under "pack/*/ever"
> in 'runtimepath'?
> 

If you're going to try removing the need for something like Pathogen, then yes, 
you'll need to do something like that. Or just traverse those directories as if 
they were on the runtimepath or something.

The nice thing about Pathogen is that it makes installation of any plugin dead 
simple: just unzip/clone that plugin into its own directory under "bundle". 
That's it, there aren't any other required setup steps and every plugin is 
treated the same.

I think the current state of the Vim code not only offers nothing not already 
available from Pathogen, it makes things much harder to use, because you treat 
different types of plugin in different ways, and SOMETIMES require a secondary 
installation step (but sometimes not).

MAYBE plugin managers will start using these features, but since they've 
already found ways to work using the current "runtimepath" setting, which will 
also work in older Vims, I don't know why they'd bother.

If the goal was not to replace Pathogen, and it was not to make it easier to 
install plugins, but rather to control the explosion of runtimepath from 
existing plugin manager solutions, then it looks like the new code fails at 
that as well.

Maybe it's time to step back and document the goals of this new interface and 
design a coherent system to address each goal before throwing code at it. The 
current state seems rather ad-hoc and I'm not sure what problem it's solving. I 
think most people assumed the original try with pack/*/ever would work just 
like Pathogen and not only on plugin/* files.

I haven't read the help files on the topic yet (if there are any) so perhaps 
those make things clearer.

-- 
-- 
You received this message from the "vim_use" 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_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Packages

2016-03-03 Thread Bram Moolenaar 

Matthew Desjardins wrote:

> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 9:20:00 AM UTC-5, Matthew Desjardins wrote:
> > There have been a couple of people posting about how the new package 
> > feature can, in its current state, replace Pathogen.
> > 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_dev/BN5DuHpzzBc/OjoGDSqeEQAJ
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_use/QHqDKtdqUkk/PY7WydFdAQAJ
> > 
> > Could someone explain how?  It doesn't seem to work for plugins that
> > don't have a "plugin" directory, and as far as I can tell from the
> > source it's not supposed to, either.
> > 
> > Why was this decision made to only support plugins with a "plugin"
> > directory?
> 
> If I'm understanding 7.4.1480 correctly, if something is just a syntax
> file, for example, it has to go under "opts" and loaded manually with
> ":packadd"?

Either that or create an empty plugin file.

I realize several people who have previously been using Pathogen are
confused.  Perhaps we can just put every directory under "pack/*/ever"
in 'runtimepath'?

-- 
It is too bad that the speed of light hasn't kept pace with the
changes in CPU speed and network bandwidth. -- 

 /// Bram Moolenaar -- b...@moolenaar.net -- 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_use" 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_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Packages

2016-03-03 Thread Matthew Desjardins 
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 9:20:00 AM UTC-5, Matthew Desjardins wrote:
> There have been a couple of people posting about how the new package feature 
> can, in its current state, replace Pathogen.
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_dev/BN5DuHpzzBc/OjoGDSqeEQAJ
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_use/QHqDKtdqUkk/PY7WydFdAQAJ
> 
> Could someone explain how?  It doesn't seem to work for plugins that don't 
> have a "plugin" directory, and as far as I can tell from the source it's not 
> supposed to, either.
> 
> Why was this decision made to only support plugins with a "plugin" directory?

If I'm understanding 7.4.1480 correctly, if something is just a syntax file, 
for example, it has to go under "opts" and loaded manually with ":packadd"?

-- 
-- 
You received this message from the "vim_use" 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_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Packages

2016-03-03 Thread BPJ 

Den 2016-03-02 kl. 21:52, skrev Bram Moolenaar:

> >Still wondering what to call the command that adds a directory under
> >pack/opt to 'runtimepath':
> > :addfrompack
> > :packadd
> > :addrunpath
> >
> >?

>
>I suggest :addplugin or :addpluginrtp to be consistent with :loadplugin.

I actually think that including the word "plugin" is confusing, because
it can mean "the .vim file in the plugin directory".  Basically "plugin"
is used both for that plugin/*.vim file and for the whole thing,
including syntax, indent, etc. file.

I think it's important emphasising that it's about a path (being added to
'runtimepath') and no actual loading happens.


Please allow me to suggest `:addpack[age]path`. Unlike those 
listed above it would actually give me a hint what it is all about!


/bpj

--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" 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_use" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.