Re: Packages

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:02:42 PM UTC-6, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> Christian Brabandt wrote:
> >
> > Really a plugin directory is necessary? That sounds awkward. What about
> > colorschemes, indent or ftplugins and syntax scripts?
> >
> > We could still change it, right?
> >
> > > It would be possible to make another command than :loadplugin to find
> > > any directory with the specified name under 'packpath', but I don't see
> > > a good reason. Perhaps adding a remark to the documentation is
> > > sufficient?
> >
> > I'd rather prefer it to be fixed instead of adding yet another command
> > or option.
>
> Hmm, so we throw out ":loadplugin" and add ":loadpackitem"?
> It would then find directories matching "pack/*/opt/{name}"
>

I agree this needs fixing. I did not realize only things with a "plugin" folder would be loaded, that makes the current implementation next to worthless as a replacement for things like Pathogen.

The naming of the plugin was discussed in the first link from the OP: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_dev/BN5DuHpzzBc/OjoGDSqeEQAJ

I think ":loadpackitem" would be a very awkward name, please don't use that. ":loadplugin" is sufficient and matches user expectations even if it isn't pedantically correct. ":loadaddon" might be a little better although we don't use the term "addon" anywhere else that I know of.

TL;DR: just stick with the current name but fix the behavior.

--
--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.