Re: Packages

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 2:02:52 PM UTC-6, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> Matthew Desjardins wrote:
>
> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 9:20:00 AM UTC-5, Matthew Desjardins wrote:
> > > There have been a couple of people posting about how the new package feature can, in its current state, replace Pathogen.
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_dev/BN5DuHpzzBc/OjoGDSqeEQAJ
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_use/QHqDKtdqUkk/PY7WydFdAQAJ
> > >
> > > Could someone explain how? It doesn't seem to work for plugins that
> > > don't have a "plugin" directory, and as far as I can tell from the
> > > source it's not supposed to, either.
> > >
> > > Why was this decision made to only support plugins with a "plugin"
> > > directory?
> >
> > If I'm understanding 7.4.1480 correctly, if something is just a syntax
> > file, for example, it has to go under "opts" and loaded manually with
> > ":packadd"?
>
> Either that or create an empty plugin file.
>
> I realize several people who have previously been using Pathogen are
> confused. Perhaps we can just put every directory under "pack/*/ever"
> in 'runtimepath'?
>

If you're going to try removing the need for something like Pathogen, then yes, you'll need to do something like that. Or just traverse those directories as if they were on the runtimepath or something.

The nice thing about Pathogen is that it makes installation of any plugin dead simple: just unzip/clone that plugin into its own directory under "bundle". That's it, there aren't any other required setup steps and every plugin is treated the same.

I think the current state of the Vim code not only offers nothing not already available from Pathogen, it makes things much harder to use, because you treat different types of plugin in different ways, and SOMETIMES require a secondary installation step (but sometimes not).

MAYBE plugin managers will start using these features, but since they've already found ways to work using the current "runtimepath" setting, which will also work in older Vims, I don't know why they'd bother.

If the goal was not to replace Pathogen, and it was not to make it easier to install plugins, but rather to control the explosion of runtimepath from existing plugin manager solutions, then it looks like the new code fails at that as well.

Maybe it's time to step back and document the goals of this new interface and design a coherent system to address each goal before throwing code at it. The current state seems rather ad-hoc and I'm not sure what problem it's solving. I think most people assumed the original try with pack/*/ever would work just like Pathogen and not only on plugin/* files.

I haven't read the help files on the topic yet (if there are any) so perhaps those make things clearer.

--
--
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.