> On 12 April 2012 09:30, Christian Brabandt <cblists@256bit.org> wrote:
>> If I recall correctly, it's more than a year ago, that I provided the
>> patch:
>> .........
>> I wouldn't call that recent anymore ;)
>
> Your version of digraph.txt is not in the compiled versions of Vim
> distributed from vim.org. It is not even in the source packages for
> those who would compile Vim themselves.
It is. I provided the patch and Bram committed it to the runtime files
that you can find at
at the help :h digraph-table-mbyte and online at
http://code.google.com/p/vim/source/browse/runtime/doc/digraph.txt
(which was after 7.3.115 and before 7.3.116, see also the Last change
line from January 15th, 2011).
> So long as it is not in the current Vim distributions, this version
> of digraph.txt is by no means representative of Vim. It is still
> ineffective. Had you not mentioned it, I wouldn't even know it
> existed. How would I?
Because it is in the official runtime files.
> Now, I did not intend to make a big deal of all this, but saying that
> digraph.txt contains all digraph definitions, as was the case, is
> simply misleading, because it appears to not be true for almost all
> users of Vim.
>
[…]
> What can be found is ×, but /\, as I said, is missing. Also missing
Which happens to produce the same glyph (it just uses a different set
of characters to create them).
> are c|, cO, n~, etc. – perhaps all those at the end of :digraph's
> output. As long as they are effective in Vim, it is worth listing
> them, too, in digraph.txt (under 'legacy' or whatever).
Please don't understand me wrong but I am getting tired of discussing
this. If you miss the old legacy digraphs back from the Vim 5 days
(that do not conform to RFC1345), feel free to submit a documentation
patch.
regards,
Christian
--
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