krischik wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 28, 2:10 pm, Charles E Campbell Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> krischik wrote:
>>> My proposal (if you have not guessed already) is to merge more
>>> separate plug ins into modes. What do you think about the idea?
>> Well, it sounds like a "mode" is a combination of three plugins (syntax,
>> indent, ftplugin, ), and you want one person to maintain them all for a
>> specific language.
>
> Not quite. It would be a combinations of up to 7 plugins (syntax,
> indent, ftplugin, ftdetect, completion, compiler, autoload) and a doc
> file. I would consider "autoload" and "doc" the compulsory part -
> otherwise there would be no point in a coordinated effeort.
[...]
I agree about "doc"; but it seems to me that "autoload" would not necessarily
be required for every ftplugin. On the contrary: I see why to use autoload for
_global_ plugins: load a stub at startup and use autoload only if the plugin's
functionality is actually used. But a ftplugin, indent, syntax, compiler, etc.
are only sourced when a file of that filetype is opened -- so I don't see any
gain from having part of the plugin in an autoload script.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
A novel approach is to remove all power from the system, which
removes most system overhead so that resources can be fully devoted to
doing nothing. Benchmarks on this technique are promising; tremendous
amounts of nothing can be produced in this manner. Certain hardware
limitations can limit the speed of this method, especially in the
larger systems which require a more involved & less efficient
power-down sequence.
An alternate approach is to pull the main breaker for the
building, which seems to provide even more nothing, but in truth has
bugs in it, since it usually inhibits the systems which keep the beer
cool.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
