Re: A plea against the name "execute()"

2016-07-10 Fir de Conversatie Gary Johnson
On 2016-07-09, Manuel Ortega wrote: > call and call() are also. But I don't think it makes confusing. > > > But it does, for new users and people learning VimScript.  I'm not confused > *anymore* about :substitute/substitute(), because I've now done a ton of > vimscripting.  But when I was

Re: A plea against the name "execute()"

2016-07-09 Fir de Conversatie Manuel Ortega
> > call and call() are also. But I don't think it makes confusing. But it does, for new users and people learning VimScript. I'm not confused *anymore* about :substitute/substitute(), because I've now done a ton of vimscripting. But when I was new, I can't tell you how many times that messed

Re: A plea against the name "execute()"

2016-07-09 Fir de Conversatie mattn
On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 1:35:22 AM UTC+9, Manuel Ortega wrote: > I don't have positive suggestion for an alternative, but... > > > Please, please don't name the new function "execute()".  It only breeds > confusion because there is already a command called "execute".  It really > sucks

A plea against the name "execute()"

2016-07-09 Fir de Conversatie Manuel Ortega
I don't have positive suggestion for an alternative, but... Please, please don't name the new function "execute()". It only breeds confusion because there is already a command called "execute". It really sucks when this happens, like with substitute() and :substitute. New users get confused,