Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
> I am also wondering why evalcmd()? When discussing the name in Neovim
> bug tracker I was against `evalcmd()` because for `eval('expr')`
> expression result is expected to be the only effect (though it is not
> necessary, most expressions used with `eval()` do not have
> side-effects). Commands on the other side do not have any results of
> evaluation at all, they are run for their side-effects and `capture()`
> just records one of their side-effects, so `eval…` is not a good name.
> Note that this function is not going to be used only for capturing
> output, in some cases it will be just a replacement for `:execute`
> which works in expression context.
Yeah, I'm also not happy with evalcmd(). It seemed right at first, but
comparing to eval() it's quite different.
I also don't like capture(), since it's actually executing the commands.
It's actually more like system(), which already was a weird name from
old days.
Perhaps we should call it execute() ?
It's executing commands and returning the output seems like an obvious
thing for such a function to return.
We might want to make the ":silent" part optional then.
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
233. You start dreaming about web pages...in html.
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
--
--
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/d/optout.
