>
> On Aug 13, 10:19 am, bill lam<cbill....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Чтв, 12 Авг 2010, pansz писал(а):
>>> 1. vim-tiny: This is Tiny version of vim, pretty useless IMO.
>> This is an insult to the original vi. ;-)
>> More seriously, after using vim.tiny for a week, I found it fit for
>> most jobs that I needed such as composing email and editing script
>> files.
>
> I want a vim with +eval feature, which implies at least the Normal
> version.
>
> +eval means you can have conditional statement and many fundamental
> features for creating any plug-ins. (in vim, no plug-ins often means
> no syntax-highlights)
>
> I won't consider it useful if the script doesn't even support the "if"
> statement.
>
> Of course, your mind may vary.
>
My point of view is different: I don't know what I may someday want to
use, so I compile a Vim with everything I can (Huge features, all kinds
of mice, including at least xterm and GPM, that I can get included,
GTK2, Gnome, all interpreters that my distro offers and I can puzzle out
how to put in; I even include +xterm_save which AFAIK can only be done
by modifying feature.h, not via configure) except a very few features
which I know I'll never want (only one so far besides what configure
auto-excludes: -tag_old_static, which also AFAIK requires patching
feature.h).
Then I compile (under the executable name "vi" and in a shadow directory
so as not to confuse the Make machinery) a "tiny" version with the bare
minimum, both as a "sanity test" that new features can actually be left
off, and to see how wide the range is in executable file size (currently
0.5 vs 2 MB). I use it only rarely, but still more than actually "never".
Best regards,
Tony.
--
Everyone talks about apathy, but no one _does_ anything about it.
--
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
No comments:
Post a Comment