Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] NeoVim and vim-syntax

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:34:19 -0400
"Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 01:14:31PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote
> > On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:38:01 -0400
> > "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> >   
> > >   As mentioned elsewhere, what happens when two or three other
> > > people do their own forks?  Plugin 1 works with vim A and B but
> > > not C or D.  Plugin 2 works with vim A and C and D but not B.  The
> > > number of directories could potentially be 2^N where N is the
> > > number of forks.  And who's going to do the necessary testing
> > > across multiple versions?  And remember that each minor version
> > > bump of any of the forks could render another fork's plugin
> > > incompatable.  This is a classic "moving target".  The only way
> > > that works is to have each fork look after their own copies of
> > > plugins.  
> > 
> > If and when that happens:  
> 
>   It already has happened.  Compare /usr/portage/app-editors against
> http://texteditors.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ViFamily  Portage has...
> 
> * elvis
> * levee
> * nvi
> * vi
> * vim
> * vis
> 
> ...not to mention neovim, which doesn't show up on texteditors.org.

And none of the rest of those are Vim compatible, or support Vim's
scripting language. NeoVim is the only one that does, and only because
it's effectively a fork.

>   This would require a multi-dimensional array of approx 7 packages
> (today) versus however many ebuilds are currently in Portage for each
> editor.  Do I see any volunteers for compatibility testing for all
> current and future VI-family editors and plugins on all current and
> future ebuilds on all arches (small and large endian) and various USE
> flags?

You appear to be confusing vi and vim.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh