[chuck-users] VIM users

Martin Ahnelöv operagasten at gmail.com
Thu Nov 1 06:48:03 EDT 2007

ons 2007-10-31 klockan 21:27 +0100 skrev eduard aylon:
> On Oct 31, 2007, at 11:13 AM, Martin Ahnelöv wrote:
> > ons 2007-10-31 klockan 02:13 +0100 skrev eduard aylon:
> >> Excuseme I didn't quite understand you cause I didn't know anyone was
> >> working on it and I  now see you've been doing some work there. I
> >> think they both do sort of the same.
> >>
> >> I'll keep myself updated on that link,
> >
> > Well, actually, your seems to have just a tiny bit more features than
> just tiny things, though
> > the one currently on the wiki, and you seems to know what you're doing
> > (I'm just copying and modifying blindly),
> not really. I'm just hacking Bram Moolenar's c.vim and fitting it to  
> my needs. So keeping the c/cpp style with those features available in  
> chuck and getting rid of those which are not.
> > so I think you should replace
> > the one on the wiki with this one. If you want to.
> I think other vim users should say something about this. In my  
> opinion if you get use  to and like a specific syntax coloring it is  
> difficult to be comfortable again with a different one. So if yours  
> was the one on the wiki, probably many others are using it. If I had  
> known (it's my fault for not checking it) that someone was updating  
> it, I would have worked on that. So I think we should wait for others  
> to speak out.

True, true, but I seriously doubt that there is any more vim users on
the list (well, not more than 3, anyway).  

> >
> > I'm attaching a new version of the one you sent in your first post,  
> > but
> > with added support for the new "<--"-comments (line 126 and 129),
> didn't you can use <-- to write comments.

It's pretty new (as of

> > and
> > highlighting for +=>, and similar (however, it's also highlighting  
> > +=^.
> > Is this correct, kassen, spencer, ge?) (line 187).
> I like to keep things separate. For me + and => are two different  
> things and I wouldn't like them to be highlighted as if it were an  
> "atomic" feature.
> >
> > One thing, though:
> >
> > For the markup of the complex numbers I'm using this regex:
> > "\(%\|#\)\ze(". That'll make the # or % coloured if it's followed by a
> > "(" (which is uncoloured). This makes the highlight look like the
> > example-code in Perry, Ge and Rebeccas paper
> > http://soundlab.cs.princeton.edu/publications/uana_icmc2007.pdf .
> > What do you think?
> >
> In my ck.vim I highlight everything (so including # or % with  
> parenthesis and the coma) as it is all one number. Just a matter of  
> taste...
> Anyway I'm attaching my newest ck.vim with the broken things I  
> mentioned the other day been corrected.

Okay, we seems to have pretty different views on how it should look. I
propose that we keep both files on the wiki - it would be a shame if any
of them were lost. I'll update mine with the things I like in your
ck.vim, and you can do what you want with yours.


More information about the chuck-users mailing list