I agree your said except No3. ;-) Perhaps, we will hope an interface to "stop the timer". And No3 will disappoint that.
Thanks. - Yasuhiro Matsumoto On Friday, May 6, 2011 5:25:11 PM UTC+9, Ingo Karkat wrote: > > 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
