Roland Puntaier wrote:
> Hi Bram,
>
> > Having two Vim executables is a bad idea. Next you have two versions of
> > Perl, small and big features, etc. You end up with many different Vim
> > executables. It's better to try and have one executable.
>
> OK, let's have both python2.x and python3.x.
>
> But let's get a common understanding first.
> Then, if you feel comfortable to integrate that in the official sources,
> I can do the changes needed.
>
> > It's a lot easier if the Python script itself specifies what version of
> > Python it is for. E.g., by something in the first line. Then one can
> > use the ":python" command and get an error if the Python version doesn't
> > match. If it would be possible to build Vim with both Python 2.x and
> > 3.x then it would always work.
>
> Now I understand what you mean:
> the vim python command gets dispatched to a C function that pre-scans to
> see
> which python version to use
> and then calls the according ex_python() or ex_python3() C functions.
>
> First thought: For single line statements one could use a simple "3" to
> decide.
> But note: '3+X' is a valid python expression which could change X.
> Lagacy ':python3+X' would then suddenly be forwarded to python3 as '+X',
> which is also valid. This could all get undetected.
>
> So 3 cannot be used to distinguish.
Hmm, annoying. We should have required white space after the command.
We could require that now. That still has the problem that this is
valid: ":python3 +X"
And would be interpreted in current Vim as ":python 3 +X"
But do we really care?
I actually can't think of a useful Python command that starts with 3.
You can have a valid command like ":py3+4", but it has no effect, so it
should not actually be used. Is there anything else than an expression
that starts with the number 3?
To be as backwards compatible as possible, we would require white space
after ":python3", but ":pythonXXX" would still be accepted. XXX would
need to start with a non-letter, but not a 3. To stay on the safe side
we should not accept any number.
> And anyway, there is no big difference from script solution to having two
> commands.
> (Please comment)
>
>
> I suggest a new command for python 3.
>
> My favourite currently
> :PYTHON
> I know that this is contrary to the policy to use small letters for
> builtin ex commands,
> but :py3 and :python3 would have problems like the one mentioned above.
> (:_python possibly would do, too.)
> (please comment)
Upper case letters are reserved for user commands. Breaking this
convention makes things too complicated and confusing.
An alternative would be ":pythonthree". But that looks ugly.
":pythree" is not nice either.
Perhaps we should use ":py3", with the requirement that white space
follows. It's not perfect, but probably the best compromise.
Is ":py_3" better? Looks strange.
- When Vim was compiled with Python 2.x ":py3" gives an error
- When Vim was compiled with Python 3.x ":python" gives an error
- When Vim was compiled with both 2.x and 3.x both commands work
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
179. You wonder why your household garbage can doesn't have an
"empty recycle bin" button.
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
