ANN: New stable release

Hugh Sasse hgs at dmu.ac.uk
Fri Sep 16 11:01:50 EDT 2005


On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Doug Kearns wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 11:59:32AM +0100, Hugh Sasse wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Doug Kearns wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I don't think there's an official definition for these extensions,
>> but I use .erb for _any_ other filetype, when .rhtml is not
>> appropriate.  I don't know what others do.  (Ruby is very Unixy (for
>> want of a word!) and people don't discuss extension names that much
>> :-))
>
> Right, well this is going to be 'interesting' to implement. I guess we'd
> need to run scripts.vim to determine the main filetype...
>
> <snip>
>
>> I'll see if I can find a more concise example.  There's lots of junk
>> in it, but it was the first that I was playing with.  Will you still
>> need this if the ".erb implies html" assumption is false?
>
> No, thanks. A simple XML file with .erb extension is exhibiting this
> behaviour. I may just be misunderstanding the way filetype detection
> works.

I'm not certain how it works either.  I think there are at least two
things going on, extension and syntax checking...
>
> <snip>
>
>> I only have one a/c on the machine just now, but I'd like others to
>> get the benefit.  Similary on Unix.  I usually put the vim stuff to
>> be system wide so everyone benefits, and if I have to help them I
>> can spin up vim and have it work sensibly.  [cf the PragProg advice
>> about use one edior and learn it well: you don't want it to change
>> too much just because you're logged in as someone else (who never
>> uses that editor, anyway).]
>
> Right. Obviously the installer allows you to install it anywhere you
> like but, I would think, the scenario you describe is best served by an
> install in $VIM/vimfiles.

OK. I didn't create that because it wasn't there.  I'll maybe try
that tonight.
>
>>> multiple versions of Vim and trying to restrict the use of the vim-ruby
>>
>> I was running 62 and 63 at the same time for a while, but I thought
>> it would install in the latest.
>
> If you install in $VIM/vimfiles then these files will be available,
> system-wide, to all versions. However, the ftdetect mechanism was

OK.

> introduced in 6.3 so earlier versions will require a filetype.vim to be
> constructed as per :help new-filetype. So even if you didn't manually
> add a new filetype.vim, 6.2 would still have access to all the updated
> vim-ruby files. The only difference would be that eRuby files weren't
> autodetected.
>
> I can't really see a down side to this setup. Perhaps this is where we
> should start rambling about POLS? ;-)

I think that's right now I understand how it works.  So now I would
not be surprised.
>
>>> files to a single version, perhaps? If you keep it in $VIMRUNTIME the
>>> next time you update Vim you'll overwrite the vim-ruby files. While the
>>
         [...]
>> updating vim.  Not that I've updated vim that often, only been using
>> it since about 5.7.
>
> You are but a young pup. ;-)

Only in vim years :-)  I used vi before that, and even SOS on a DEC
System 10 more years back than would interest most people!
>
>>>>          * * *
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm assuming that people running rubygems will have $GEM_HOME/bin in
>>> their PATH. Have you just blown that assumption out of the water? ;-)
>>
>> Ah. Maybe I've not configured my settings correctly:
>> GEM_HOME: Undefined variable.
>
> <snip>
>
> Nope - sky high! ;-)

? (To quote `ed` :-))
>
> It seems that GEM_HOME is only required for a 'user' install. Though the
> core assumption is still correct.
>
>>> When you say "remind me" are you referring to the INSTALL instructions?
>> gem query -l -n vim =>
>>
>> *** LOCAL GEMS ***
>>
>> vim-ruby (2005.09.15, 2005.07.27)
>>      Ruby configuration files for Vim.  Run 'vim-ruby-install.rb' to
>>      complete installation.
>>
>> So it has detected the need for this?
>
> This is all Gavin's work and I assume that he knew what he was doing as
> he's a rubygems developer. ;-)

See below.
>
> I just performed a default system-wide install of rubygems and it
> appears to install the executable scripts in /usr/bin - the same place
> 'gem' is located. So there shouldn't be any need to specify a location
> for the installer script.

OK: whereis vim-ruby-install.rb =>
vim-ruby-install: /usr/local/bin/vim-ruby-install.rb

Oh, I didn't expect an install script to end up there, in the normal PATH.
I thought it would be hidden within the place gems are stored for
use the one time.
>

brains# vim-ruby-install.rb

Possible Vim installation directories:
         1) //.vim
         2) /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles

Please select one (or anything else to specify another directory): 2

Target directory '/usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles' does not exist.
Do you want to create it? [Yn] y
mkdir -p /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles
mkdir -p -m 755 /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles/compiler
compiler/eruby.vim        -> /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles/compiler/eruby.vim
compiler/ruby.vim         -> /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles/compiler/ruby.vim
compiler/rubyunit.vim     -> /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles/compiler/rubyunit.vim
mkdir -p -m 755 /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles/ftdetect
ftdetect/ruby.vim         -> /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles/ftdetect/ruby.vim
mkdir -p -m 755 /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles/ftplugin
ftplugin/eruby.vim        -> /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles/ftplugin/eruby.vim
ftplugin/ruby.vim         -> /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles/ftplugin/ruby.vim
mkdir -p -m 755 /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles/indent
indent/ruby.vim           -> /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles/indent/ruby.vim
mkdir -p -m 755 /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles/syntax
syntax/eruby.vim          -> /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles/syntax/eruby.vim
syntax/ruby.vim           -> /usr/local/share/vim/vimfiles/syntax/ruby.vim
brains# exit
brains# logout
brains hgs 252 %> gem query -l -n vim

*** LOCAL GEMS ***

vim-ruby (2005.09.15, 2005.07.27)
     Ruby configuration files for Vim.  Run 'vim-ruby-install.rb' to
     complete installation.
brains hgs 253 %>

So not quite that magic then.  I thought that suggesion would disappear.

> <snip>
>
>>> PS. We haven't had the usual flood of post-release discussion so I'm
>>> hoping all is, generally, running smoothly...
>>
>> Or those in .ac.?? and .edu are going nuts in preparation for the
>> start of the academic year and have not had chance to tackle this.
>
> I'll await their return to these matters then. ;-)

I'm one of those, but took the plunge nonetheless.
>
> Thanks,
> Doug
>

         Thank you,
         Hugh


More information about the vim-ruby-devel mailing list