> Of course vim can't possibly support all possible terminals
>
> My point is different. It's isn't working correctly on ANY of them.
>
> see https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues?q=vim+in%3Atitle+
That search results in several issues, which one is this about?
This is about one
And
https://jpsoft.com/forums/threads/incompatibility-of-tcmd-30-and-vim9.11517/unread?new=1
--
rob
r...@drrob1.com
On Sat, Jun 3, 2023, at 9:20 PM, Robert Solomon wrote:
> Of course vim can't possibly support all possible terminals
>
> My point is different. It's isn't working
Of course vim can't possibly support all possible terminals
My point is different. It's isn't working correctly on ANY of them.
see https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues?q=vim+in%3Atitle+
On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 4:04:44 PM UTC-4 aro...@vex.net wrote:
>
> > Vim can't possibly add
> Vim can't possibly add code to support each peculiarity of each of them.
> I'm not sure what generic problem exists that is not terminal-specific.
>
The early days of Unix coincided with a Cabrian explosion of physical
terminals. This led to the development of a database of terminal
attributes
> Which program do you mean when you say the good-old windows console
> and the newer windows terminal?
The Windows console is what was originally the console in MS-Windows.
Perhaps people refer to it as command.com or cmd.exe.
AFAIK this is available on every MS-Windows installation without
Which program do you mean when you say the good-old windows console and the
newer windows terminal?
Others are reporting that vim does not work correctly in the current
windows terminal. I just read in the JPSoft forum that the screen is
scrambled upon exiting vim when called from windows
> Sorry but,
> Out of well indexing,
> which is faster ?
>
> 1) indexing by bytes -> legacy
> 2) indexing by characters -> vim9script
Indexing by bytes can be faster. But the difference is probably small,
the computation of the index probably matters more. You'll have to try
it out to know
> On 2023-06-03, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> >
> >> Legacy Vim script:
> >>
> >> let text = 'àbc'
> >> echo text[2]
> >>
> >> Result: 'b'
> >>
> >> Vim 9 script:
> >>
> >> const text = 'àbc'
> >> echo text[2]
> >>
> >> Result: 'c'
> >>
> >> Is the different behavior (counting chars
Hi Bram,
Sorry but,
Out of well indexing,
which is faster ?
1) indexing by bytes -> legacy
2) indexing by characters -> vim9script
Thank you for your answer.
Nicolas
**
Le samedi 3 juin 2023 à 13:12:53 UTC+2, Bram Moolenaar a écrit :
>
> > Legacy Vim script:
> >
> > let text = 'àbc'
> > echo
On 2023-06-03, Lifepillar wrote:
>> Yes, in Vim9 script the index is in characters. In legacy script it is
>> in bytes.
>>
>> The help for this doesn't have it's own tag, I'll add one.
>> You can find it above ":help vim9-gotchas".
>
> I was expecting to find it under `:help vim9-differences`,
On 2023-06-03, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
>> Legacy Vim script:
>>
>> let text = 'àbc'
>> echo text[2]
>>
>> Result: 'b'
>>
>> Vim 9 script:
>>
>> const text = 'àbc'
>> echo text[2]
>>
>> Result: 'c'
>>
>> Is the different behavior (counting chars vs bytes?) intentional?
>
> Yes, in
> Legacy Vim script:
>
> let text = 'àbc'
> echo text[2]
>
> Result: 'b'
>
> Vim 9 script:
>
> const text = 'àbc'
> echo text[2]
>
> Result: 'c'
>
> Is the different behavior (counting chars vs bytes?) intentional?
Yes, in Vim9 script the index is in characters. In legacy
On 2023-06-03, Lifepillar wrote:
> On 2023-06-03, Lifepillar wrote:
> Mmh, even strpart(), which is supposed to count bytes, gives the same
> result:
Forget this: strpart() is fine. I have trouble just with indexing.
Life.
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do
On 2023-06-03, Lifepillar wrote:
> Legacy Vim script:
>
> let text = 'àbc'
> echo text[2]
>
> Result: 'b'
>
> Vim 9 script:
>
> const text = 'àbc'
> echo text[2]
>
> Result: 'c'
>
> Is the different behavior (counting chars vs bytes?) intentional?
Mmh, even strpart(), which is
Legacy Vim script:
let text = 'àbc'
echo text[2]
Result: 'b'
Vim 9 script:
const text = 'àbc'
echo text[2]
Result: 'c'
Is the different behavior (counting chars vs bytes?) intentional?
Thanks,
Life.
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not
On 2023-06-02, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> You could try using another browser.
I have tried with Safari, Brave, and LibreWolf (~Firefox) on macOS to no
avail. I have taken care to disable ad blockers and, afaics, only
cross-site cookies are blocked.
Life.
--
--
You received this message from
16 matches
Mail list logo
