On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:10:20 -0500 Robert Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nikolai Weibull wrote: > > On 4/23/07, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> wish: allow a: in the function definition line: > >> function foo(a:line1, a:line2) > >> This is currently not allowed. But it seems logical to allow it. > > > > Why should it be? Extra typing? > > > > Counterwish: implement better semantics for VimScript so that the > > lookup order of variables alleviates the need for explicit > > environments. Yes, this will break backwards compatibility. Tough. > > > > nikolai > > > Counterwish #2: Dump VimScript and replace it with EMCAScript (maybe > using SpiderMonkey) so that people don't need to learn a new language > just to change the color scheme or keyboard mappings. Yes, this will > break backwards compatibility. Tough. This sounds like flame bait, and it seems that an unusually high number of very decent folks have taken it. Healthy discussion is all well and good, but I think if you're really interested in implementing extensions to Vim in ECMAScript, you should build an interface like those that already exist for Perl, Python, Ruby, etc. I know that ECMAScript is fairly popular, so finding some help along the way shouldn't be too difficult. If it's a feature you honestly want, go for it. When its working well enough, submit it for consideration to be included into the official Vim release. But for starters, I'd recommend taking a look at src/if_python.c and src/if_ruby.c to see how this has been done with other languages. As for eliminating Vim script, I think choice is a good thing, and Vim script is very well suited to programming the Vim editor. If you can write an interface for ECMAScript, you don't need to worry about Vim script. You can write in the language you like, and those who still favor Vim script can continue to use it. Live and let live. -- Taylor Venable [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.metasyntax.net/
