Drastic proposal: rename eruby to rhtml to make way for an HTML free eruby filetype

Tim Pope vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info
Mon Mar 12 17:32:01 EDT 2007

On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 04:52:02PM +1100, Doug Kearns wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 09:47:38AM -0600, Tim Pope wrote:
> > The subject says it all.  The most common use of eruby is filling out
> > HTML templates, but this is by no means the only use.  I think it
> > would be a good idea to have an rhtml filetype for html templates, and
> > an eruby filetype for everything else.  There is precedent for this
> > elsewhere:  Vim has a django filetype for Django templates and
> > apparently will be getting a separate djangohtml filetype.
> What is special, other than its current predominance, of rhtml over
> other files containing eRuby?  Why should rhtml files be given special
> treatment and rfoo and rbar files be lumped together in some other
> generic eRuby filetype?


> Well, again, it seems to me that there shouldn't really be an
> "idealistic" need to make a special case for rhtml files.  What am I
> missing?
> The implementation is, as always, a whole other matter...

I can't really name a good reason other than popularity and "they're
getting special treatment now anyways".  Idealistically, one filetype
to rule them all does indeed sounds grand.  But I was breaking my own
rule and taking the practicalities into account when I suggested two.


More information about the vim-ruby-devel mailing list