Am 30.09.2010 22:08, schrieb Ben Fritz:
> On Sep 30, 11:28 am, Bee<beeyaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 7:34 am, Ben Fritz<fritzophre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You're trying to use conditional logic in a tiny or small build.
>>> This will not work. Expression evaluation is only available in
>>> Normal builds or bigger.
>>
>>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> This is the information you are missing, :help :if
>>
>> :if {expr1} *:if* *:endif* *:en* *E171* *E579* *E580*
>> :en[dif] Execute the commands until the next matching ":else"
>> or ":endif" if {expr1} evaluates to non-zero.
>>
>> From Vim version 4.5 until 5.0, every Ex command in
>> between the ":if" and ":endif" is ignored. These two
>> commands were just to allow for future expansions in a
>> backwards compatible way. Nesting was allowed. Note
>> that any ":else" or ":elseif" was ignored, the "else"
>> part was not executed either.
>>
>
> Actually, this says absolutely nothing about small or tiny builds of
> Vim 7.3. I take it, you expect Vim 7.3 Tiny to act like Vim 4.5 in
> this case? This does seem reasonable, but is not explicitly stated. I
> think you're right and that's how it's supposed to work.
>
>> This is a conditional PARSING problem.
>>
>> As stated, the "if 0" is used to comment out a region of the vimrc.
>>
>> This vimrc works on all vim versions on all platforms I work, with the
>> exception of the one formatted as T05().
>> The workaround is to use the T01() or T02() formatted version below.
>>
>> I should have used ''if has("eval")'' in the example. See below.
>>
>> Both tiny and small are designed skip any region bracketed with any
>> conditional sense (future expansions), but in one of the three
>> examples FAILs to parse correctly.
>>
>> Only EXAMPLE 3 above, did tiny and small FAIL to parse the conditional
>> correctly.
>>
>> I will try writing differently:
>>
>
> Thanks, your new example is much clearer.
>
>> if has("eval") " tiny, small, normal parse CORRECTLY
>> function! T01()
>> let r = 1
>> if r> 0
>> let r = 0
>> endif
>> endfun
>> endif
>>
>> if has("eval") " tiny, small, normal parse CORRECTLY
>> function! T02()
>> let r = 1
>> if r> 0 | let r = 0 "<<=<<=<<= only change
>> endif
>> endfun
>> endif
>>
>> tiny and small FAIL to parse correctly when formatted like:
>>
>> if has("eval") " tiny, small FAIL -- normal parse correctly
>> function! T05()
>> let r = 1 | if r> 0 "<<=<<=<<= only change
>> let r = 0
>> endif
>> endfun
>> endif
>>
>> T05() is parsed fine in a normal build with all other options the
>> same.
>>
>
> This does look like a bug. However, I note that :let is an expression-
> related command. Maybe :let commands without +eval just ignore
> everything on the line without checking for more commands? I'm not
> sure if there's really a way around this, since expressions cannot be
> parsed without +eval.
>
> What happens if you replace the "let r = 1" command with a :set
> command or something else that does not relate to expression
> evaluation? I'm more curious than anything else...I don't have the
> knowledge of Vim's code or the desire to use a Tiny/Small build to
> even begin to know how to fix this.
I don't know the details either, but it's not surprising that a script
line like
let r = 1 | if r > 0
fails with a small version. Without parsing the expression after :let,
how should a small vim know (how would you know) that the bar after :let
separates from the following :if and is not part of a string? e.g.
let r = "foo" . "| if r > 0"
After all, it looks like bad style anyway ...
--
Andy
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
