Re: Why Vimball archives are evil?

panshizhu@routon.com wrote:
> vim_use@googlegroups.com 写于 2010-09-26 09:51:37:
>
>> The more steps required, the more likely he is to move
>> on to something else without trying the plugin.
>>
>
> Agree, so why not simply provide .vim files, which does not need to be
> decompressed at all?
>
> I usually distribute my scripts in plain .vim format. Trying to integrate
> everything into one single .vim isn't quite difficult.
>
> For Windows Vim user, it would be much better too see something end with
> .vim than .vba, (change it to .vima would be great.)
>
Here are some reasons:

* syntax files should go into syntax directories
* plugin/ vs autoload/ -- putting everything into one file means
slower startup
* ftplugin/ and plugin/ -- sometimes plugins work with multiple
filetypes (ex. my AutoAlign, which has a common portion and separate,
typically small, sections for various filetypes). Its cleaner than
using a lot of autocmds.

I'm sure I could come up with more reasons if pressed.

Now, about .vba as an extension. I don't have a problem with supporting
a new extension; is .vmb taken? I'd like to keep the extension to less
than or equal to three characters in length. However, vimball would
still need to handle *.vba for backwards compatibility.

Regards,
Chip Campbell

--
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