On 13/03/18 06:47, Nikolay Aleksandrovich Pavlov wrote:
2018-03-13 9:09 GMT+03:00 Matthew Winn <v...@matthewwinn.me.uk>:
How many people will use it is irrelevant. The point I'm trying to make here
is that all the opposition has been based around objections that have never
been used to object to other features. Where was the worry about bloat or
destabilisation when a terminal was being added to Vim? Who raised concern
that not enough people need it when it came to a new regex engine? Why is
this patch in particular so contentious?
I am not opposing to the patch itself, but I am opposing your
statements about other new features being less important. If all you
did was *just* saying that patch is there and well tested you would
not hear anything from me on the issue. Or at least saying that other
features destabilize and bloat executable, without throwing around
statements like people not expecting IPC from the editor. It is hard
to argue against new features being rather buggy in the beginning,
especially with Bram’s strange development workflow not having
unstable feature branches or even checking commit in CI before it is
pushed to master. It is not hard to argue that actually added new
features are useful and expected by the users.
You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that those other
features shouldn't have been added. I'm saying that the arguments that
are being presented as reasons to reject the vartabs patch apply even
more strongly to those other changes but were never considered a problem
before. It doesn't bother me that Vim has interprocess communication or
a terminal emulator in it. It does bother me that this patch is being
rejected on grounds that were never a problem when other patches were
submitted.
Let's go through some of the arguments against this patch:
* It'll increase the size too much.
Not true.
Never been a consideration before.
* It'll destabilise Vim.
Not true.
Never been a consideration before.
* Not enough demand for it.
Difficult to judge, but seems to be untrue.
Never been a consideration before.
* Makes files unportable.
Does every file created by Vim need to display identically everywhere?
Word processor documents can't be read everywhere either. Doesn't mean
they're not useful to the people who are able to display them.
Why is it that this feature alone has to overcome a whole load of
hurdles that other features haven't? What other features have faced this
sort of opposition?
What I'm asking for is a level playing field. I don't see that as
unreasonable.
--
Matthew Winn
--
--
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 vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
