Re: How powerful is language build in vim compare with the language build in emacs?

On 28 March 2010 09:25, Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> wrote:

> [...]
>
>    GCC         0.47 seconds    (the hand-optimized version)
>    SBCL        0.67 seconds    (with DECLARE and THE expressions)
>    GForth      3.8 seconds     (the hand-optimized version)
>    SBCL        9.5 seconds     (without DECLARE and THE expressions)
>    Python      35 seconds
>
> (Common Lisp has dynamic typing by default but programmer
> can use DECLARE and THE expressions to give hints to the
> compiler about variables' type. They help optimizing the
> compiled code.)
>
> DISCLAIMER: My tests may suck so I suggest everyone do
> better ones. :-)

:-). Well I think I should mention that GForth is VM based,
or it was last I looked. A fast commercial Forth is probably
pretty close to the optimised SBCL. --Antony

--
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

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vim_use+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.

Re: No more 8-character limit?

On 29 March 2010 19:30, Yakov wrote:

> On Mar 29, 5:46 pm, Tony Mechelynck
> <antoine.mechely...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Even on later Windows systems, 8.3 names still exist
> > because they are
>
> Are we going to rename vim to something like
> visualeditorcompatiblewithvi now ?

Why? Not everything warrants a catchy name.

> I think the argument confuses two different things,
> (a) 8.3 limit of APIs or of filesystem, and
> (b) tendency of [unix] people to abbreviate filenames and
> variables *really short*.
>
> Beleive it or not, some people will abbreviate really
> short, no matter what's filename limit.

You've never needed more than eight letters? --Antony

--
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

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vim_use+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.

Re: No more 8-character limit?

On Mar 29, 5:46 pm, Tony Mechelynck <antoine.mechely...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Even on later Windows systems, 8.3 names still exist because they are

Are we going to rename vim to something like
visualeditorcompatiblewithvi now ?

I think the argument confuses two different things,
(a) 8.3 limit of APIs or of filesystem, and
(b) tendency of [unix] people to abbreviate filenames and variables
*really short*.

Beleive it or not, some people will abbreviate really short, no matter
what's filename limit.

--
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

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vim_use+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.

Re: How to remember end of line when quitting/reopening in insert mode

Hi Andy!

On So, 28 Mär 2010, Andy Wokula wrote:

> The main help page ('helpfile')
> :h
> has a section
> :h local-additions
> which collects the headlines of plugin docs (~/.vim/doc/*.txt, ...).
> Vim has to update it frequently, as $VIMRUNTIME/doc/help.txt is not changed.
> Maybe this process has influence on the cursor position.

I don't think, this was the problem.

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vim_use+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.

Re: No more 8-character limit?

On 29/03/10 16:44, LuKreme wrote:
> On 29-Mar-2010, at 07:51, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Joan Miquel Torres Rigo wrote:
>>> 2010/3/28 Benjamin R. Haskell:
>>>
>>>> Are there any systems in common, current use for which this causes
>>>> problems? (Why would people be using Vim in DOS emulators?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why would people be using Windows on servers?
>>>
>>> But there is.
>>
>> Corporations that want support, or who use Windows-only programs.
>>
>> Windows isn't the point, anyway. Post-3.1 Windows versions don't have
>> an 8-character limit.
>
> Er... Windows 95, 98, and ME sorta still had that limit (file names were 8.3, but the system could expand them. However, if your calls were not accessing the windows APIs, you were still limited to 8.3 filenames.
>

Even on later Windows systems, 8.3 names still exist because they are
part of the FAT filesystem specification: the directory "line" (of 64
bytes IIRC) containing the date, access flags, starting cluster number,
etc., of each entry also has 8+3 bytes for the name; Long File Names
(when present) are stored in UCS-2le (or is it UTF-16le?) on one or more
additional lines in a manner which makes them look like some sort of
disk labels (and thus invisible) to systems ignorant of them. Each file
or directory has an 8.3 name and usually an LFN too; the LFN is used (if
present of course) for most display purposes, but the file (or
directory) can still be accessed by the 8.3 name if desired, and that is
one of the "tricks" which can be used in Vim to avoid problems when the
LFN contains troublesome characters such as spaces. For instance,

:view c:/PROGRA~1/vim/vim72

will usually bring up your $VIMRUNTIME directory (in a netrw buffer) on
most Windows systems. (In this case, of course, :view $VIMR<Tab><CR>
would be more economical of keystrokes, but the example can be generalized.)

Best regards,
Tony.
--
All science is either physics or stamp collecting.
-- E. Rutherford

--
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

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vim_use+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.

Re: Unexpected behaviour of File browser in multi-windows environment

Jean Johner wrote:
> Hello,
> I just installed netrw v137k.
> Please do the following:
> gvim file1
> :vs . (to launch netrw in a vertical window, the cursor is positioned
> on ../)
> click the vertical separation between the 2 windows
> Result: .. is activated
>
> Same error as previous with horizontal split. I guess the treatment is
> the same.
>

Please try netrw v137l.

So you're a physicist -- are you working with the LHC?

Thank you for the feedback,
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

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vim_use+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.

Re: No more 8-character limit?

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, LuKreme wrote:

> On 29-Mar-2010, at 07:51, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
> >
> > Windows isn't the point, anyway. Post-3.1 Windows versions don't
> > have an 8-character limit.
>
> Er... Windows 95, 98, and ME sorta still had that limit (file names
> were 8.3, but the system could expand them. However, if your calls
> were not accessing the windows APIs, you were still limited to 8.3
> filenames.

Ah, yes. That seems vaguely familiar now. Thanks for the correction.
I guess I'd assumed that Vim for Windows would've been written to access
long filenames. The download page lists at least a couple versions that
don't[1], even for NT/2K/XP.

--
Best,
Ben

[1] http://www.vim.org/download.php#pc

--
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

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vim_use+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.