[long] Still: Bug?: Vim folding for Ruby broken

[Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Kaspar Schiess wrote:

> Hello Hugh,
>
> It really pains me to misthread messages like that, but as the gmane announce 
> shows, this should be the last one to get misthreaded. I excuse for this.
>
>> OK, I see what your problem is now -- the fold would start at puts
>> instead of starting at the line with do, although it doesn't do this
>> in a class.  Although I added folding in the first place to ruby's
>> vim syntax file, I just added it where it looked right, and was
>> unawere of subtleties.  I'm fairly sure others have modified it
>> since, but I'm not sure how to track this down...
>
> I have tried several versions of the ruby.vim file; I have tried on several 
> machines. A pattern I see here is the following: Versions that work on unix 
> machines don't do it on windows versions of VIM. Could this somehow (insert 
> explanation here) be a platform issue ?

I see this -- I get the same folding bug on Windows XP with vim63.
but my unix version seems to have unix line endings...
>
0000000    2220    5669    6d20    7379    6e74    6178    2066    696c
 	   "       V   i   m       s   y   n   t   a   x       f   i   l
0000020    650a    2220    4c61    6e67    7561    6765    3a09    0952
 	   e  \n   "       L   a   n   g   u   a   g   e   :  \t  \t   R
0000040    7562    790a    2220    4d61    696e    7461    696e    6572
 	   u   b   y  \n   "       M   a   i   n   t   a   i   n   e   r
0000060    3a09    0944    6f75    6720    4b65    6172    6e73    0a00
 	   :  \t  \t   D   o   u   g       K   e   a   r   n   s  \n
0000077

whereas the Windows one is definitely DOS.

> I have used vim62 and vim63, but on windows machines. As one does on windows, 
> I have installed vim trough the self-installing executable that can be found 
> on www.vim.org.
>
>> No, mine folds within the methods in the same way in and outside the
>> class [file attached for repeatability]  -- this 'cut and paste'ed
>> from a vim window:
>
> As I was trying to express in my first mail, its not that much about nesting 
> of classes, but about nesting of fold-generating constructs in general. Three

But that difference may be significant.

> and below, works, above, does not.
>
> Wait, one idea here, let me see... I had the set fdl=1 setting suspected of 
> triggering a vim bug (explaining the different behaviour connected to nest 
> depth), but no. I just disabled the setting, and it did not work. Makes me 
> think, perhaps you are interested in some parts of my vimrc:

I've not used fdl in my files.

>
> " Enable folding
> set fen			" folding enabled
> set fdl=1		" fold at level > 2
> set fdc=5		" fold column width
> set fdm=syntax		" fold method: syntax

but apart from that (fdl) I'm basically using the same settings.

>
>> And I don't understand why yours is showing + instead of - for open folds.
>
> That is my manual simulation of vim behaviour...

Oh, I see.
>
> I am even more at loss with this problem that I was some days ago; I can't 
> see why this should be a bug of ruby.vim. I'd probably better to a vim 
> mailing list... ?

You may need to do that, but we'll see if this sparks off something
from someone else first.
>
> best regards,
> kaspar