Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vim 7.3.1000

ftp.vim.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Vim 7.3.1000

#41

Post by pdw »

chris_wot wrote: post #38
jlgreco wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of things I have seen in Unicode that seem like they should not exist in the first place. MATHEMATICAL [BOLD|SANS-SERIF|DOUBLE-STRUCK|MONOSPACE] DIGIT for example... I guess those things potentially carry significant meaning in some mathematics texts though. I guess the ICU stuff probably gives you an strtol equivalent that can handle that sort of stuff.

The LibreOffice guys have told me hat ICU has security concerns and is, for all intents and purposes, no longer being developed. They are switching to another engine (hard buzz? Name escapes me). Anyone know if this is true?

HarfBuzz and ICU are very different things. HarfBuzz is a small library for text shaping (basically, putting font glyphs together to form words, which can be quite complex for some scripts). ICU on the other hand can do pretty much everything that's vaguely related to internationalization. It's quite possible that LO was only using it for text shaping of course.

Re: Vim 7.3.1000

#42

Post by lucian1900 »

chris_wot wrote: post #38
jlgreco wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of things I have seen in Unicode that seem like they should not exist in the first place. MATHEMATICAL [BOLD|SANS-SERIF|DOUBLE-STRUCK|MONOSPACE] DIGIT for example... I guess those things potentially carry significant meaning in some mathematics texts though. I guess the ICU stuff probably gives you an strtol equivalent that can handle that sort of stuff.

The LibreOffice guys have told me hat ICU has security concerns and is, for all intents and purposes, no longer being developed. They are switching to another engine (hard buzz? Name escapes me). Anyone know if this is true?

Harfbuzz [1] is for text shaping/layout, not unicode support.

1. http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/HarfBuzz/

Re: Vim 7.3.1000

#43

Post by lucb1e »

lucb1e wrote: post #36

I'm not sure I understand the point here. Why is this on Hackernews?

Seriously, do I have to get downvoted 5x (by >750 karma users) for not understanding something that is apparently obvious to everyone else? I'm genuinely not getting it.

Re: Vim 7.3.1000

#44

Post by swah »

pekk wrote: post #39
tincholio wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the raw _editing_ power of Vim is, as you say, probably unmatched in Emacs. Vim, however, cannot hold a candle to all the rest of Emacs and its elisp-y goodness. I'm a long-time Emacs user, and having recognized that Vim's modal editing and "language" are a better way of editing, opted for using Evil-mode, which gives you the best of both worlds. The transition was not without pain, but it was overall quick a…

elisp is not such a great language, so the value of editing using a pile of it is mixed. It boils down to a matter of taste. If you like elisp, it's a big win and if you don't, it's a deal-breaker.

It is a great language when run inside Emacs for doing Emacs stuff. Elisp is orders of magnitude more powerful than Vimscript on Vim. Its easy to see by the best things each community has produced on their editors.

Disclaimer: I love all 3 editors for they all have great ideas.

Re: Vim 7.3.1000

#45

Post by hyperbling »

sbrother wrote: post #33
AutocorrectThis wrote: post #27

The raw power that you feel in your hand when using VIM is amazing, I never get that feeling with Emacs, but each to their own. Not needing to reach for the arrow keys, backspace etc. is neat too.

You never need the arrow keys or backspace with emacs either: C-f, C-b, C-n, C-p, and C-d :)

in my experience using emacs reaching for the meta key is worse than reaching for the arrow keys. at least with arrow keys you don't need to morph your hand into pretzel.

Re: Vim 7.3.1000

#46

Post by srl »

_pmf_ wrote: post #35
srl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why this is preferable to using the preprocessor? I've always considered it a pretty fundamental principle that the "surface" interpretation of code should be as close as possible to the "real" meaning, and we're definitely not trying to represent an "enumeration". What's wrong with #define, or `const uint32_t HebrewCharMin...`?

One thing is that the compiler can warn about missing cases when using enums (GCC optionally does this); with defines, it's not clear that several values form a closed set. The other thing is that function signatures can now show 'enum myenum e' instead of 'int v', which is much clearer.

> One thing is that the compiler can warn about missing cases when using enums (GCC optionally does this); with defines, it's not clear that several values form a closed set.

But here, the values /don't/ form a closed set, and using enums would imply that they do.

Re: Vim 7.3.1000

#47

Post by chrismorgan »

lucb1e wrote: post #43
lucb1e wrote: post #36

I'm not sure I understand the point here. Why is this on Hackernews?

Seriously, do I have to get downvoted 5x (by >750 karma users) for not understanding something that is apparently obvious to everyone else? I'm genuinely not getting it.

This is the first time Vim's patch level has gone over 999; matter of fact, Bram expressed some concern about it. The patch level has hitherto been expressed as three digits (e.g. 7.3.052).

Some information is available in the "Plans for Vim 7.4" thread in the vim_dev group: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/vim_dev/Z...

Re: Vim 7.3.1000

#48

Post by lucb1e »

chrismorgan wrote: post #47
lucb1e wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, do I have to get downvoted 5x (by >750 karma users) for not understanding something that is apparently obvious to everyone else? I'm genuinely not getting it.

This is the first time Vim's patch level has gone over 999; matter of fact, Bram expressed some concern about it. The patch level has hitherto been expressed as three digits (e.g. 7.3.052). Some information is available in the "Plans for Vim 7.4" thread in the vim_dev group: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/vim_dev/Z...

Ah okay, thanks for explaining :)

Re: Vim 7.3.1000

#49

Post by chris_wot »

lucian1900 wrote: post #42
chris_wot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LibreOffice guys have told me hat ICU has security concerns and is, for all intents and purposes, no longer being developed. They are switching to another engine (hard buzz? Name escapes me). Anyone know if this is true?

Harfbuzz [1] is for text shaping/layout, not unicode support. 1. http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/HarfBuzz/

Drat it. iPad "corrected" my spelling and I didn't notice.

Re: Vim 7.3.1000

#50

Post by tsm »

jlgreco wrote: post #15
sltkr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize you're talking about a codebase which still uses pre-standard parameter type declarations, right?

Oh yes, Vim's code is anything but pleasant. I worked with it a decent amount several years ago when I was maintaining, for a short period of time, a patch that would add a terminal emulator to Vim windows.

I was just searching for such a thing yesterday. Did the patch go anywhere?
Post reply on HN