From ldibanyez at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 16:19:35 2008 From: ldibanyez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Luis_Daniel_Ib=E1=F1ez_Gonz=E1lez?=) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:19:35 -0400 Subject: E169 after installation Message-ID: <8908a3a10804181319v1c28b42cub77b7cf11a8de2b0@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I recently downloaded the latest zip, and manually move everything to the proper .vim directories (that includes, creating a "ruby" folder in the ftplugin directory and put the ruby.vim and eruby.vim). When i do "vim hello.rb", got a nasty E169 "command too recursive", refered to the lines 1 and 50 of the files in my .vim and in the vim71 directory... it seems that teh 50th line is the one in eruby.vim. Am i doing something wrong here? Thanks in advance for your answers. P.D. Ubuntu 7.10 and vim 7.1.56, the html ftplugin worked fine. -- Luis D. Ib??ez G. Computer Engineering Undergraduate Universidad Sim?n Bol?var Caracas - Venezuela -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/vim-ruby-devel/attachments/20080418/da4c6095/attachment-0001.html From vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info Sun Apr 20 11:16:31 2008 From: vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info (Tim Pope) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:16:31 -0500 Subject: E169 after installation In-Reply-To: <8908a3a10804181319v1c28b42cub77b7cf11a8de2b0@mail.gmail.com> References: <8908a3a10804181319v1c28b42cub77b7cf11a8de2b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080420151631.GC24238@michael.tpope.us> Hi Luis, On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 04:19:35PM -0400, Luis Daniel Ib??ez Gonz?lez wrote: > I recently downloaded the latest zip, and manually move everything to the > proper .vim directories (that includes, creating a "ruby" folder in the > ftplugin directory and put the ruby.vim and eruby.vim). No part of the installation process involves creating a ruby directory so somehow or other you've been led astray. Try running the vim-ruby-install.rb script instead. > When i do "vim hello.rb", got a nasty E169 "command too recursive", refered > to the lines 1 and 50 of the files in my .vim and in the vim71 > directory... it seems that teh 50th line is the one in eruby.vim. There are 4 different files named eruby.vim. > Am i doing something wrong here? > > Thanks in advance for your answers. > > P.D. Ubuntu 7.10 and vim 7.1.56, the html ftplugin worked fine. If you have Vim 7.1, you already have the newest version of Vim/Ruby anyways and the issue is moot. (Though we're well overdue for a release *cough*). Oh, and if it's a default Ubuntu install, run "apt-get install vim", as you have a stripped down version. Cheers, Tim From dougkearns at gmail.com Sun Apr 20 14:30:39 2008 From: dougkearns at gmail.com (Doug Kearns) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 04:30:39 +1000 Subject: Overdue release (was Re: E169 after installation) Message-ID: <644fc65e0804201130w73ac9c40vb7e70f16837629dc@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Tim Pope wrote: > If you have Vim 7.1, you already have the newest version of Vim/Ruby > anyways and the issue is moot. (Though we're well overdue for a > release *cough*). Is it that time again already? ;-) I think I have some stuff lying around that should be committed. Hopefully I'll have some time to do so this week. I've also noticed some pretty severe regexp related regressions that we'll need to look at first. E.g. x /= y. Using my supreme powers of deduction I'm guessing they're related to some of your recent regexp highlighting fixes but haven't had a chance to investigate yet. Thanks for the prod... Doug From vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info Sun Apr 20 17:16:40 2008 From: vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info (Tim Pope) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:16:40 -0500 Subject: Overdue release (was Re: E169 after installation) In-Reply-To: <644fc65e0804201130w73ac9c40vb7e70f16837629dc@mail.gmail.com> References: <644fc65e0804201130w73ac9c40vb7e70f16837629dc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080420211640.GD24238@michael.tpope.us> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 04:30:39AM +1000, Doug Kearns wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Tim Pope wrote: > > > > > If you have Vim 7.1, you already have the newest version of Vim/Ruby > > anyways and the issue is moot. (Though we're well overdue for a > > release *cough*). > > Is it that time again already? ;-) Yeah, I'm hoping to avoid the crunch we had last year by being ready *before* the next Vim is on the cusp of release. > I think I have some stuff lying around that should be committed. > Hopefully I'll have some time to do so this week. > > I've also noticed some pretty severe regexp related regressions that > we'll need to look at first. E.g. x /= y. Using my supreme powers of > deduction I'm guessing they're related to some of your recent regexp > highlighting fixes but haven't had a chance to investigate yet. Thanks for the catch; I committed a fix. Let me know if there are other issues. I did some investigation into the heuristics Ruby uses to distinguish between regexps and division and was able to significantly increase the overall accuracy (no more special casing method names like gsub, match, etc.). Looks like this one had slipped through the cracks. For the record, here's some ambiguous syntax examples and how Ruby interprets them. I should be catching everything with the assumption that no local exists (which only matters in a couple of edge cases). x/y # / # division x/ y # / # division x / y # / # division x /y # / # regexp (unless x is a local) x /3 # / # regexp (unless x is a local) 3 /y # / # division x /=y # / # division Other thoughts: Remove the $Id$ lines? The upstream CVS server munges it anyways, and Bram is not a fan of it. Switch to Git? :) Probably not worth it for this particular project but I'm a huge fan now. Cheers, Tim From vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info Wed Jun 25 18:03:27 2008 From: vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info (Tim Pope) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:03:27 -0400 Subject: Vim/Ruby release! Message-ID: <20080625220327.GD15626@maeby.tpope.net> Hate to bring this up again, but I see Vim 7.2 is on the horizon and I'd like to get the latest files into that release. I know Bram didn't much care for our last minute runtime file updates last time but given that ruby embedding (in, e.g., vim script) is broken pretty badly I think it'd be prudent to submit them anyways. Doug, are there any issues blocking a release you'd like me to take a look at? Cheers, Tim From dougkearns at gmail.com Fri Jun 27 23:07:20 2008 From: dougkearns at gmail.com (Doug Kearns) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:07:20 +1000 Subject: Vim/Ruby release! In-Reply-To: <20080625220327.GD15626@maeby.tpope.net> References: <20080625220327.GD15626@maeby.tpope.net> Message-ID: <644fc65e0806272007t660f9933lb75cfd8138c59ecd@mail.gmail.com> Tim, On 6/26/08, Tim Pope wrote: > Hate to bring this up again, but I see Vim 7.2 is on the horizon and > I'd like to get the latest files into that release. I know Bram > didn't much care for our last minute runtime file updates last time > but given that ruby embedding (in, e.g., vim script) is broken pretty > badly I think it'd be prudent to submit them anyways. Doug, are there > any issues blocking a release you'd like me to take a look at? Yes, I noticed 7.2 was coming up fast. Thanks for the reminder - no apologies needed for that. I'll push this out tonight after I've given it one last check for any obvious regressions. There were a couple of things I was planning on fixing but suspect I won't have time prior to the 7.2 release. Thanks, Doug From dougkearns at gmail.com Sat Jun 28 01:42:03 2008 From: dougkearns at gmail.com (Doug Kearns) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:42:03 +1000 Subject: Vim/Ruby release! In-Reply-To: <20080625220327.GD15626@maeby.tpope.net> References: <20080625220327.GD15626@maeby.tpope.net> Message-ID: <644fc65e0806272242j26c76d2ftfdade94f572871f1@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Tim Pope wrote: > but given that ruby embedding (in, e.g., vim script) is broken pretty > badly I think it'd be prudent to submit them anyways. You're referring to syntax highlighting here? > Doug, are there > any issues blocking a release you'd like me to take a look at? Mark, did you want to make those changes to rubycomplete.vim that were suggested by Bram a week or so ago? Doug From dougkearns at gmail.com Sat Jun 28 02:39:07 2008 From: dougkearns at gmail.com (Doug Kearns) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:39:07 +1000 Subject: Syntax highlighting regressions Message-ID: <644fc65e0806272339n6d304b44s363b716d8a258c58@mail.gmail.com> Tim, I haven't had a chance to investigate these yet but I notice that: 1. The escaped delimiter in regular expressions are no longer highlighted correctly: %r$foo \$ foo$ 2. rubyInvalidVariable seems to be overly aggressive in its matching of invalid variables. E.g. it picks up any variable with a leading "$_" 3. It seems a minus sign preceding numbers is now being matched as part of the number highlight group. Is that intentional? As the plus sign is not being matched I assume it isn't. I did have a conversation with Bram about this years ago and he seemed to recommend excluding the sign chars as most of the syntax files do. I'll leave it an extra day anyway to give you a chance to answer these or if you're busy I'll fix them tomorrow night when I have the extra time. Doug From vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info Sun Jun 29 00:26:08 2008 From: vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info (Tim Pope) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:26:08 -0400 Subject: Syntax highlighting regressions In-Reply-To: <644fc65e0806272339n6d304b44s363b716d8a258c58@mail.gmail.com> References: <644fc65e0806272339n6d304b44s363b716d8a258c58@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080629042608.GH15626@maeby.tpope.net> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 04:39:07PM +1000, Doug Kearns wrote: > Tim, > > I haven't had a chance to investigate these yet but I notice that: > > 1. The escaped delimiter in regular expressions are no longer > highlighted correctly: > > %r$foo \$ foo$ I can't reproduce this; \$ is highlighted as rubyRegexpEscape here. Is that not desired? > 2. rubyInvalidVariable seems to be overly aggressive in its matching > of invalid variables. E.g. it picks up any variable with a leading > "$_" Eek, fixed that particular case. > 3. It seems a minus sign preceding numbers is now being matched as > part of the number highlight group. Is that intentional? As the plus > sign is not being matched I assume it isn't. I did have a > conversation with Bram about this years ago and he seemed to recommend > excluding the sign chars as most of the syntax files do. Yes it was intentional. I think it looks better and I might have been doing it for some other side effect but I no longer remember so if you want to strip it out, go for it. Thanks, Tim From vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info Sun Jun 29 00:42:44 2008 From: vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info (Tim Pope) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:42:44 -0400 Subject: Syntax highlighting regressions In-Reply-To: <20080629042608.GH15626@maeby.tpope.net> References: <644fc65e0806272339n6d304b44s363b716d8a258c58@mail.gmail.com> <20080629042608.GH15626@maeby.tpope.net> Message-ID: <20080629044244.GI15626@maeby.tpope.net> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:26:08AM -0400, Tim Pope wrote: > > 3. It seems a minus sign preceding numbers is now being matched as > > part of the number highlight group. Is that intentional? As the plus > > sign is not being matched I assume it isn't. I did have a > > conversation with Bram about this years ago and he seemed to recommend > > excluding the sign chars as most of the syntax files do. > > Yes it was intentional. I think it looks better and I might have been > doing it for some other side effect but I no longer remember so if you > want to strip it out, go for it. Err, to further clarify, the omission of "+" was unintentional. I've gone ahead and pulled out "-" highlighting for now but I'd really like to see it restored at a later point. Note that -(3) calls the unary - operator on 3 but -3 is a literal syntax that does not. So I think highlighting the "-" as part of the number makes sense. One further request. As soon as the suite is in satisfactory condition, could we go ahead and email it to Bram and deal with the release notes and release after the fact? Cheers, Tim From vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info Sun Jun 29 00:46:51 2008 From: vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info (Tim Pope) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:46:51 -0400 Subject: Vim/Ruby release! In-Reply-To: <644fc65e0806272242j26c76d2ftfdade94f572871f1@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080625220327.GD15626@maeby.tpope.net> <644fc65e0806272242j26c76d2ftfdade94f572871f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080629044651.GJ15626@maeby.tpope.net> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 03:42:03PM +1000, Doug Kearns wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Tim Pope wrote: > > but given that ruby embedding (in, e.g., vim script) is broken pretty > > badly I think it'd be prudent to submit them anyways. > > You're referring to syntax highlighting here? Yes. This was in 7.1 mind you. It's long since been fixed. I read my mail a bit out of order so take that into consideration if my earlier message fails to take into account this thread. Cheers, Tim From dougkearns at gmail.com Sun Jun 29 10:41:25 2008 From: dougkearns at gmail.com (Doug Kearns) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:41:25 +1000 Subject: Syntax highlighting regressions In-Reply-To: <20080629042608.GH15626@maeby.tpope.net> References: <644fc65e0806272339n6d304b44s363b716d8a258c58@mail.gmail.com> <20080629042608.GH15626@maeby.tpope.net> Message-ID: <644fc65e0806290741ha7e9cf0p4bea06e26d57a69b@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Tim Pope wrote: > On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 04:39:07PM +1000, Doug Kearns wrote: >> 1. The escaped delimiter in regular expressions are no longer >> highlighted correctly: >> >> %r$foo \$ foo$ > I can't reproduce this; \$ is highlighted as rubyRegexpEscape here. > Is that not desired? Right, having had a quick look at it, it just seems that we're missing a number of possible delimiter chars. E.g. %r at foo \@ foo@ Off the top of my head there's [~`!@#%&-_=:;"',><] I'll fix those first thing tomorrow if you don't beat me to it. Before these weren't highlighted specially so your changes are actually an improvement. On a more general note, thanks very much for improving the general RegExp related syntax commands - much nicer. Thanks, Doug From dougkearns at gmail.com Sun Jun 29 10:42:37 2008 From: dougkearns at gmail.com (Doug Kearns) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:42:37 +1000 Subject: Syntax highlighting regressions In-Reply-To: <20080629044244.GI15626@maeby.tpope.net> References: <644fc65e0806272339n6d304b44s363b716d8a258c58@mail.gmail.com> <20080629042608.GH15626@maeby.tpope.net> <20080629044244.GI15626@maeby.tpope.net> Message-ID: <644fc65e0806290742ufe11f81wcb24a409d028df49@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Tim Pope wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:26:08AM -0400, Tim Pope wrote: >> > 3. It seems a minus sign preceding numbers is now being matched as >> > part of the number highlight group. Is that intentional? As the plus >> > sign is not being matched I assume it isn't. I did have a >> > conversation with Bram about this years ago and he seemed to recommend >> > excluding the sign chars as most of the syntax files do. >> >> Yes it was intentional. I think it looks better and I might have been >> doing it for some other side effect but I no longer remember so if you >> want to strip it out, go for it. > > Err, to further clarify, the omission of "+" was unintentional. I've > gone ahead and pulled out "-" highlighting for now but I'd really like > to see it restored at a later point. Note that -(3) calls the unary - > operator on 3 but -3 is a literal syntax that does not. So I think > highlighting the "-" as part of the number makes sense. I tend to agree, it's just that I recall having a conversation with Bram about it and we decided to try and keep it consistent across the syntax files. A quick check seems to suggest that most still don't seem to highlight the sign char. > One further request. As soon as the suite is in satisfactory > condition, could we go ahead and email it to Bram and deal with the > release notes and release after the fact? Yes, that was my intention too. ;-) I'll just give Mark an opportunity to respond first regarding that rubycomplete.vim patch or, alternatively, we can just send the other files in the interim if he's busy at the moment. Thanks, Doug From dougkearns at gmail.com Sun Jun 29 21:23:19 2008 From: dougkearns at gmail.com (Doug Kearns) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:23:19 +1000 Subject: Syntax highlighting regressions In-Reply-To: <644fc65e0806290741ha7e9cf0p4bea06e26d57a69b@mail.gmail.com> References: <644fc65e0806272339n6d304b44s363b716d8a258c58@mail.gmail.com> <20080629042608.GH15626@maeby.tpope.net> <644fc65e0806290741ha7e9cf0p4bea06e26d57a69b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <644fc65e0806291823h18d3cc20u20c22f49c6109267@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:41 AM, Doug Kearns wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Tim Pope wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 04:39:07PM +1000, Doug Kearns wrote: > > > >>> 1. The escaped delimiter in regular expressions are no longer >>> highlighted correctly: >>> >>> %r$foo \$ foo$ >> I can't reproduce this; \$ is highlighted as rubyRegexpEscape here. >> Is that not desired? Sorry, I actually misread that as rubyEscapeDelim... So, I think that it's fine as it is at the moment. Doug From dougkearns at gmail.com Mon Jun 30 09:10:03 2008 From: dougkearns at gmail.com (Doug Kearns) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:10:03 +1000 Subject: Vim/Ruby release! In-Reply-To: <20080625220327.GD15626@maeby.tpope.net> References: <20080625220327.GD15626@maeby.tpope.net> Message-ID: <644fc65e0806300610o6ebfb33ah45284a5931b03132@mail.gmail.com> Tim and others, I've just sent the latest to Bram. Regards, Doug From vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info Mon Jun 30 11:19:35 2008 From: vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info (Tim Pope) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:19:35 -0400 Subject: Vim/Ruby release! In-Reply-To: <644fc65e0806300610o6ebfb33ah45284a5931b03132@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080625220327.GD15626@maeby.tpope.net> <644fc65e0806300610o6ebfb33ah45284a5931b03132@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080630151933.GM15626@maeby.tpope.net> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:10:03PM +1000, Doug Kearns wrote: > Tim and others, > > I've just sent the latest to Bram. Awesome, thanks.