Is it just me, or are there CVS problems with SF again?
7.0d BETA doesn't seem to have shown up on CVS yet.
Vince
Is the idea that this is a complete switch to SVN, or will the CVS
tree still be updated once it's back online?
-Original Message-
From: Edward L. Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Maybe we should go to Subversion at SourceForge after all, since their
> > > > SVN servers are not exper
Hi All,
1) Yes, it is still maintained, both against 6.4 and the new vim 7 tree.
2) However, the recent SF CVS outage has prevented me generating a up-to-date
patch. (I've been too busy to have time to migrate over to subversion) Once
SF's anon CVS is back online and synched, I'll be able to pos
A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
> My distribution of SuSE 9.3 came with a program named kvim which is a
> version of gvim 6.2.14, modified for kde (and, IIUC, Qt) (but --version
> says "compiled by [EMAIL PROTECTED]" and no modified-by line). (The console
> Vim that came with it was a 6.3.58.). Good luck
I'm still alive, just very busy :-)
New home for conceal patches is:
http://vince.negri.googlepages.com/
-Original Message-
From: A.J.Mechelynck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 16 August 2006 02:35
To: Philipp M. Frank
Cc: vim-dev@vim.org
Subject: Re: conceal-patch status
Philipp M.
Oh, and that page includes a vim 7 version :-)
-Original Message-
From: Vince Negri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 16 August 2006 13:28
To: A.J.Mechelynck; Philipp M. Frank
Cc: vim-dev@vim.org
Subject: RE: conceal-patch status
I'm still alive, just very busy :-)
New home for co
A.J.Mechelynck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't know where that 4-part version number comes from. 262 can be
> interpreted as 262d, 106h, 406o, ^F^A (the latter assumes one little-endian
> word),... none of which rings any bells with me.
It comes from version.h:
#define VIM_VERSION_
Charles E Campbell Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> One
> natural use for [inline folding] would be to allow LaTeX files to be
> displayed using its embedded directives while suppressing the directives
> themselves, which would make for nice LaTeX editing.
As shown here:
http://vince.neg
A.J.Mechelynck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Doesn't linewise folding also suppress information? Yet Vim has had that for
> quite some time. It is true that it doesn't make the folds disappear
> completely; rather, each outer closed fold is replaced by one line. That
> wouldn't work for in
Charles E Campbell Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Even conceallevel==3 isn't actually "completely hidden"; instead, the
> current line (the one the cursor is on and where presumably editing may
> occur) has its text shown normally (ie. no inline folding on the current
> line).
Oo, a bug
James Vega [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, integrating the [conceal] patch would provide a solution for
various itches that I know people want to scratch (mainly to do with
builtin previewing of filetypes like html, tex, etc). If it were
disabled by default (as I think folding
11 matches
Mail list logo
