On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:23 AM, <b...@airbladesoftware.com> wrote: > Hello! > > I started this thread on vim_dev[1] and it was suggested I continue here > instead. > >> I fail to understand, why this is a problem, but you should be able to work >> around that using the writefile() function, which seems to be better suited >> for such a case. > > Over the course of a day that VimL runs hundreds or thousands of times, and > when I only work on a dozen files it seems...inefficient that the buffer > number is up in the hundreds or higher. It doesn't break anything but it's > an unwanted side-effect.
Isn't your use case mentioned in vim_dev, a perfect application of tabs? Tabs have very predictable and stable numbering. It could be argued that tabs exist in part to serve the use case you mention. Buffers, in contrast, are the fundamental userland "data structure" in Vim (and Emacs), so it is important that identity for a given buffer is unique for the entire session. For example, in the fugitive.vim plugin, the Glog command fills the quicklist with buffer entries, and this will quickly increment your buffer number to the hundreds or thousands. Instead of fighting this, I say embrace it. P.S. In the future I hope to see buffers made even more flexible and useful in Vim, like Emacs... Justin M. Keyes -- -- You received this message from the "vim_use" 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_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
