On 06-May-2011 09:18, mattn wrote: > Sorry about my cutting into your topic. > > I think vim shouldn't use unique value for timer interval > 'updatetime'. I guess most of users won't like this interface. > Because, some script application may run the timer quickly. but > someone don't expect. > > We SHOULD have more consider about this issue. It is not good to get a > decision or result in a hurry. I hope more discussion about this. > > Below is my two suggestion: > > 1. updatetime for each buffer. > > split updatetime option to global/buffer. > > 2. add setInterval instead of CursorHoldR. > > I guess this is better.
I concur that the single global setting of 'updatetime' causes problems. Various plugins have different update needs, and currently they all have to battle it out over this single setting; some plugin authors even overwrite the setting because they need / assume a particular value. I don't see how "1. updatetime for each buffer" would help much with conflicting plugins, but I agree that setInterval() would help. As a script writer, I could also imagine something like this: 3. autocmd <timeout=4000> CursorHold * ... -- regards, ingo -- 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
