From dougkearns at gmail.com  Tue Aug 31 14:41:34 2010
From: dougkearns at gmail.com (Doug Kearns)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:41:34 +1000
Subject: Worth supporting 1.9 conditionally?
Message-ID: <AANLkTimrwNy8wUNwGz2q8MBvVdfQTk5G=_3D5nh0jx7i@mail.gmail.com>

G'day all,

I was just going to add some missing 1.9 syntax items and was curious
if anyone had strong feelings, either way, regarding configurable 1.9
support.

Thanks,
Doug

From now at bitwi.se  Tue Aug 31 15:03:47 2010
From: now at bitwi.se (Nikolai Weibull)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:03:47 +0200
Subject: Worth supporting 1.9 conditionally?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimrwNy8wUNwGz2q8MBvVdfQTk5G=_3D5nh0jx7i@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimrwNy8wUNwGz2q8MBvVdfQTk5G=_3D5nh0jx7i@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=_OnPjKmv=4iR459oHmiAWW908jm=pYwmJJVLW@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 20:41, Doug Kearns <dougkearns at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was just going to add some missing 1.9 syntax items and was curious
> if anyone had strong feelings, either way, regarding configurable 1.9
> support.

Moderately strong opinion: Skip it.

From vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info  Tue Aug 31 23:14:14 2010
From: vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info (Tim Pope)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:14:14 -0400
Subject: Worth supporting 1.9 conditionally?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimrwNy8wUNwGz2q8MBvVdfQTk5G=_3D5nh0jx7i@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimrwNy8wUNwGz2q8MBvVdfQTk5G=_3D5nh0jx7i@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinGR9dn=N7aKknQZ+8+Dj74FK7SmbXyquRbLGVT@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Doug Kearns <dougkearns at gmail.com> wrote:

> G'day all,
>
> I was just going to add some missing 1.9 syntax items and was curious
> if anyone had strong feelings, either way, regarding configurable 1.9
> support.
>

Also opposed. Configurable 1.9 support might make sense if people only used
1.8 or 1.9 exclusively, which I imagine is pretty uncommon in this
transition period.

I'm also curious what's missing. I know there are issues when 1.9 style
symbol hash keys are reserved words (had to revert my own fix for that due
to side effects). Perhaps -> should be highlighted (but what group?). Those
are the only omissions I've noticed, speaking as someone who's spent the
last month working in 1.9.

Cheers,
Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/vim-ruby-devel/attachments/20100831/c952c66c/attachment.html>

From dougkearns at gmail.com  Wed Sep  1 14:12:51 2010
From: dougkearns at gmail.com (Doug Kearns)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:12:51 +1000
Subject: Worth supporting 1.9 conditionally?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinGR9dn=N7aKknQZ+8+Dj74FK7SmbXyquRbLGVT@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimrwNy8wUNwGz2q8MBvVdfQTk5G=_3D5nh0jx7i@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinGR9dn=N7aKknQZ+8+Dj74FK7SmbXyquRbLGVT@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimW7MpbPjT8Mn8v4yBX6ipf47K0_RrzCo=zvW7N@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Tim Pope <vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info> wrote:
<snip>

> I'm also curious what's missing. I know there are issues when 1.9 style
> symbol hash keys are reserved words (had to revert my own fix for that due
> to side effects).

Nothing interesting.  I just noticed some of the predefined constants/variables
were missing.  E.g. RUBY_ENGINE, __ENCODING__, __callee__ etc.

> Perhaps -> should be highlighted (but what group?).

I just stuck it in rubyOperators for those fond of rainbows.  I don't really
think it needs highlighting otherwise.  "->" and "lambda" are roughly analogous
to "||" and "or".

> Those are the only omissions I've noticed, speaking as someone who's spent
> the last month working in 1.9.

Longer than myself then. :)

Doug

From dougkearns at gmail.com  Wed Sep  1 14:23:55 2010
From: dougkearns at gmail.com (Doug Kearns)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:23:55 +1000
Subject: Last Change headers
Message-ID: <AANLkTik2MqNh8TF056XAxcD4y844jmSAnxFoDe=QM32P@mail.gmail.com>

Does anyone have any thoughts on the best fix for this irritation?

Is it worth doing some sort of keyword expansion with smudge/clean filters?  I
think export-subst leaves $Format: ...$.  Perhaps a Vim specific release script
is the simplest approach since it only happens once every few years.

Nikolai, what are you using for your Vim scripts?  I notice you're going it
alone with a somewhat unique "Latest Revision" header.  How's that generated?

Doug

From now at bitwi.se  Wed Sep  1 16:41:04 2010
From: now at bitwi.se (Nikolai Weibull)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 22:41:04 +0200
Subject: Last Change headers
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik2MqNh8TF056XAxcD4y844jmSAnxFoDe=QM32P@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik2MqNh8TF056XAxcD4y844jmSAnxFoDe=QM32P@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=G4QtxxgDf7quHMaDgmQ=nYr=uP0p6Zw1Vkc51@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 20:23, Doug Kearns <dougkearns at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nikolai, what are you using for your Vim scripts? ?I notice you're going it
> alone with a somewhat unique "Latest Revision" header. ?How's that generated?

Unique?  Don?t all scripts have that stupid header?  Now that Vim is
finally under a decent, albeit inferior, SCM I really don?t see the
point of this anymore.

I use my own Vim plugin for this:

http://github.com/now/vim-templates

Note that it depends on:

http://github.com/now/vim-now-base

From dougkearns at gmail.com  Wed Sep  1 17:28:51 2010
From: dougkearns at gmail.com (Doug Kearns)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 07:28:51 +1000
Subject: Last Change headers
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=G4QtxxgDf7quHMaDgmQ=nYr=uP0p6Zw1Vkc51@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik2MqNh8TF056XAxcD4y844jmSAnxFoDe=QM32P@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=G4QtxxgDf7quHMaDgmQ=nYr=uP0p6Zw1Vkc51@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikKmAi9X=_2mV4gZQQu-F+0akRxJ4DGpwmyA7ot@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Nikolai Weibull <now at bitwi.se> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 20:23, Doug Kearns <dougkearns at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nikolai, what are you using for your Vim scripts? ?I notice you're going it
>> alone with a somewhat unique "Latest Revision" header. ?How's that generated?
>
> Unique? ?Don?t all scripts have that stupid header? ?Now that Vim is
> finally under a decent, albeit inferior, SCM I really don?t see the
> point of this anymore.

I meant that yours is "Latest Revision: YYYY-MM-DD" vs the more 'standard'
"Last Change: YYY Month DD" or whatever it is.  I just thought there might be a
pertinent reason for that.

> I use my own Vim plugin for this:
>
> http://github.com/now/vim-templates
>
> Note that it depends on:
>
> http://github.com/now/vim-now-base

Thanks.

Doug

From now at bitwi.se  Thu Sep  2 03:38:07 2010
From: now at bitwi.se (Nikolai Weibull)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 09:38:07 +0200
Subject: Last Change headers
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikKmAi9X=_2mV4gZQQu-F+0akRxJ4DGpwmyA7ot@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik2MqNh8TF056XAxcD4y844jmSAnxFoDe=QM32P@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=G4QtxxgDf7quHMaDgmQ=nYr=uP0p6Zw1Vkc51@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikKmAi9X=_2mV4gZQQu-F+0akRxJ4DGpwmyA7ot@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimXN44JmrrqxQkceRdUpATJBA+GEx3XCVDYVy-O@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 23:28, Doug Kearns <dougkearns at gmail.com> wrote:

> I meant that yours is "Latest Revision: YYYY-MM-DD" vs the more 'standard'
> "Last Change: YYY Month DD" or whatever it is. ?I just thought there might be a
> pertinent reason for that.

Well, I don?t know exactly, but I guess I decided on ?Latest Revision?
about 150 runtime files ago and never looked back.  The date format
that I use is, hands down, the best there is.

From gsinclair at gmail.com  Thu Sep 16 00:50:41 2010
From: gsinclair at gmail.com (Gavin Sinclair)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:50:41 +1000
Subject: Fwd: Error by opening a ruby file with gvim 7.3.5
In-Reply-To: <4C90DB46.8030708@gmail.com>
References: <4C90DB46.8030708@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikiCF=pmZTqPAx=2T0J3fbPzAYnHnPHA-2BNpqJ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi folks,

Any thoughts on this problem that's been reported to me?

Gavin


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cesar Romani <cesar.romani at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:42 AM
Subject: Error by opening a ruby file with gvim 7.3.5
To: gsinclair at gmail.com


Dear Gavin,
I'm using the latest release of vim, 7.3.5 compiled with MinGW on Win XP
with ruby support, version 1.9.1-p378-rc2
If I open whatever ruby file, I get the following error messages:

--------------------
Error detected while processing C:\Programmi\Vim\vim73\ftplugin\ruby.vim:
line ? 76:
NoMethodError: undefined method `synchronize' for #<Mutex:0xfeb520>
line ? 93:
E121: Undefined variable: s:ruby_path
E15: Invalid expression: s:ruby_path
--------------------

Best regards,

Cesar

--
Cesar