On 15/02/11 3:34 AM, Christian Brabandt wrote:
On Mon, February 14, 2011 12:34 pm, Ben Schmidt wrote:
I think there is a bug here, but it's not the bug you think.
I can make a short single line fold, but it doesn't always do it at
first. It seems I have to make a two-line fold and then shorten it
before the single line will fold. I think this is the bug. It should
fold straight away.
I don't agree. If I set foldminline to zero, vim perfectly folds even
a single screen line. But whenever the line length changes and crosses
the 'foldminline' limit, it does not automatically apply the folds.
You need to force evaluating the fold logic, for example by using zx or
setting foldminlines. And I would consider this a bug.
Sorry; I was unclear. What I meant was not that it 'should fold straight
away' but that it 'should be foldable straight away'.
I'm baffled by you wanting to set 'foldminlines' to zero. The help says:
"Sets the minimum number of screen lines for a fold to be displayed
closed."
So, if it is set to 1 (the default), a single screen line should be able
to be displayed closed. And it seems that if the number of screen lines
in a fold *drops* to one, it is foldable. But if the number of screen
lines in a fold *increases* to one, it isn't. This indeed seems to be
about folds being evaluated, and doing :set fml=0 does indeed make
single-line folds display as closed, and :set fml=1 stops them being
displayed closed.
:set fml=2 seems to behave in such a way that the minimum number of
screen lines to fold is 3.
So yes, it seems there are two bugs:
(1) folds aren't dynamically re-evaluated correctly/sufficiently in
light of foldminlines.
(2) the help for foldminlines is inaccurate.
One thing that is at least simple to do is change the help. How about:
"Sets the minimum number of screen lines that must be saved by closing a
fold for a fold to be displayed closed at all. If set to 0 this means
even single-line folds can be displayed closed, even though this is no
more compact than displaying them open."
This is about the best I can do without making the name of the option
'foldminlines' completely meaningless.
Or is the current help correct, and the implementation should be changed
to match it (in which case we have a couple of implementation bugs
here)?
Ben.
--
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
