2016-02-22 22:17 GMT+03:00 Charles Campbell :
> Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>> Right, the name is not ideal, but I could not think of a better one. I
>> would also use "bundle" instead of package or pack, but plugin
>> managers already use it and there could be a conflict. I
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Charles Campbell
wrote:
> Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>> Right, the name is not ideal, but I could not think of a better one. I
>> would also use "bundle" instead of package or pack, but plugin
>> managers already use it and there could be a
Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> Right, the name is not ideal, but I could not think of a better one. I
> would also use "bundle" instead of package or pack, but plugin
> managers already use it and there could be a conflict. I hope that the
> new mechanism doesn't break existing behavior. Nikolay, you had
2016-02-22 12:05 GMT+03:00 Bram Moolenaar :
>
> Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
>
>> 2016-02-22 5:08 GMT+03:00 Manuel Ortega :
>> > I know that loadplugins in an option while loadplugin is a command, but
>> > surely there is a better name for the new command. This
Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
> 2016-02-22 5:08 GMT+03:00 Manuel Ortega :
> > I know that loadplugins in an option while loadplugin is a command, but
> > surely there is a better name for the new command. This is just
> > gratuitously confusing.
> >
> > What's wrong with
2016-02-22 5:08 GMT+03:00 Manuel Ortega :
> I know that loadplugins in an option while loadplugin is a command, but
> surely there is a better name for the new command. This is just
> gratuitously confusing.
>
> What's wrong with "loadpack" or something like that?
I would
I know that loadplugins in an option while loadplugin is a command, but
surely there is a better name for the new command. This is just
gratuitously confusing.
What's wrong with "loadpack" or something like that?
-Manny
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not