On Friday, January 25, 2013 3:36:21 AM UTC+1, Sung Pae wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:45:45AM -0800, Chiel92 wrote: > > > > > Is there any progression on this subject? I'm currently writing a code > > > format plugin, which heavily relies on this issue. > > > > While I hesitate to campaign against my own patch, I think a _code_ > > formatting plugin should either use 'formatexpr' or provide it's own > > functionality for the gq command. I don't know the specifics of your > > plugin of course, so this is certainly not an absolute maxim. > > > > 'formatprg' is meant to be a replacement for the default internal > > formatter used by the gq command (and always by gw), which is used > > primarily for editing prose, not code. > > > > That said, I still stand behind my argument for switching 'formatprg' to > > a buffer-local option and have been happily using it in my own build of > > Vim without issue. > > > > Sung Pae
The plugin I'm talking about can be found right here: https://github.com/Chiel92/vim-autoformat I thought that it was a good idea to utilize formatprg, since it looks like it exists for this one purpose: to format text using an external application, whatever the text maybe. Why do you think formatexpr should be used for this instead? -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
