On 5/24/06, Zdenek Sekera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 23 May 2006 18:12
> To: Yakov Lerner
> Cc: Zdenek Sekera; vim-dev@vim.org
> Subject: Re: set readonly - strange?
>
> As far as I can tell, there are several instances where there are
> transitory buffers as vim is starting, opening a new tab, probably
> some in closing op.s.
>
That may be true, but...
> I don't know if I used the right word by saying the buffer is
> "undefined", but I don't think it it's guaranteed to be usable until a
> certain point, which is after -u, and at the "first file loaded", i.e.
> -c
>
> If you open a buffer explicitly from inside .vimtest , then that's a
> different story.
>
In my test case, buffer must exist, I am well passed the '-u ...'
phase because I can *see* the buffer when I do :set readable?'.
I think Yakov's test case is saying even more.
It's not clear that the buffer exists when the :set ro command is
read according to the -u option, though it might exist in some form
since no error occurs. Even if a buffer does exist at that time, I'm
fairly sure that is was transitory, and that it's not the same buffer
that you actually see and type :set ro? at.
Secondly, you need to be past the -c or similar stage, where it states
that files have been loaded. It doesn't say that for -u.
You *are* past the loading state when you type :set ro? , but that's
not the same as when the -u file is processed.
> It's kinda bug-ish, but it's not a bug unless it's contrary to stated
> behavior. It'll be interesting to see how Bram addresses it.
>
I also think it is bug.
---Zdenek
> On 5/23/06, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 5/23/06, Zdenek Sekera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > create a file ~/.vimtest as follows:
> > > >
> > > > cat > .vimtest
> > > > set nocompatible
> > > > set readonly
> > > > <C-D>
> > > >
> > > > and execute (g)vim:
> > > >
> > > > vim .vimtest -u .vimtest
> > > >
> > > > try :set readonly? and you'll get 'noreadonly'.
> >
> > The buffer does exist when initfile is executed. The ':ls'
> in initfile shows it.
> > Adding more printouts to initfile shows interesting results:
> >
> > vim -u 1 1
> > ----------------- file called 1 ---------------
> > set nocompatible
> > ls
> > call input('before set readonly 111')
> > set readonly
> > set readonly?
> > ls
> > set readonly?
> > set readonly?
> > echo "&readonly=".&readonly
> > call input('after set readonly 222')
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > In vim, ':verb set readonly?' shows that readonly is
> misteriously reset.
> > The output differs between vim6 and vim7.
> > --------------- vim7 output ------------------
> > 1 % "1" line 1
> > before set readonly 111
> > 1 % = "1" line 1
> >
> >
> > &readonly=1
> > after set readonly 222
> > ----------------------------------------
> > Note the missing output of ':set readonly?'!!! It prints neither
> > 'readonly' nor 'noreadonly'.
> > ----------------- vim6 output --------------------
> >
> > 1 % "1" line 1
> > before set readonly 111
> > before set readonly 111
> > 1 % = "1" line 1
> > readonly
> > readonly
> > &readonly=1
> > after set readonly 222
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Looks like a bug to me.
> >
> > Yakov
> >
>
