IMHO, that depends on for what reason you are looking at it, if you are
looking whether a particular feature is included or not the present
alphabetical ordering offers you the fastest (?) way of finding that
information
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On 8/15/06, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 8/15/06, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I want to suggest different format of features listing in output of :version.
There's always the possibility of adding a :version! alternative.
nikolai
I want to suggest different format of features listing in output of :version.
Namely, I suggest that all "included" features go first in one list, and
after them, all "excluded" go in another list. I think this is more readable
than existing format, in which both (+) and (-) features are mixed in
