ido color problem when vimpulse is loaded
Hey, Today I realized that the vimpulse module is the cause of the color-highlighting problem in ido in my emacs setup. The problem is that all matching ido candidates have the same background color and that directories, regular files ,.. have all the same foreground color. I'm using the latest git version and also tried to load vimpulse without customizations. Any hints? Regards Thomas
Thomas Hisch <[email protected]> writes:
Hey,
Today I realized that the vimpulse module is the cause of the color-highlighting problem in ido in my emacs setup. The problem is that all matching ido candidates have the same background color and that directories, regular files ,.. have all the same foreground color. I'm using the latest git version and also tried to load vimpulse without customizations.
Any hints?
This has nothing to do with Vimpulse AFAIK (other than the fact that Vimpulse depends on Viper). Viper does this. Viper messes up lots of things, this is one of them. You can report it with M-x report-emacs-bug if you're so inclined. [This was one of the things that I particularly hated about Viper, too. You can get rid of it easily enough, though. I used to have this in my setup: (remove-hook 'minibuffer-setup-hook 'viper-minibuffer-setup-sentinel) ;; post-ddfcd16209c575 Vimpulse makes also these two necessary: (defadvice viper-set-minibuffer-overlay (around fuck-viper activate) nil) (defadvice viper-has-face-support-p (around fuck-viper activate) nil) These might very well disable more than you want, though; caveat emptor.] Štěpán
Yes the cause was really Viper. Ido works well with your provided hack, thx! i will read this thread "Viper messing up minibuffer (was Re: [vimpulse] Bug: TAB doesn't autocomplete in minibuffer.)" and then maybe consider to make a bugreport. regards Thomas On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Štěpán Němec <[email protected]> wrote:
Thomas Hisch <[email protected]> writes:
Hey,
Today I realized that the vimpulse module is the cause of the color-highlighting problem in ido in my emacs setup. The problem is that all matching ido candidates have the same background color and that directories, regular files ,.. have all the same foreground color. I'm using the latest git version and also tried to load vimpulse without customizations.
Any hints?
This has nothing to do with Vimpulse AFAIK (other than the fact that Vimpulse depends on Viper). Viper does this. Viper messes up lots of things, this is one of them. You can report it with M-x report-emacs-bug if you're so inclined.
[This was one of the things that I particularly hated about Viper, too. You can get rid of it easily enough, though.
I used to have this in my setup:
(remove-hook 'minibuffer-setup-hook 'viper-minibuffer-setup-sentinel) ;; post-ddfcd16209c575 Vimpulse makes also these two necessary: (defadvice viper-set-minibuffer-overlay (around fuck-viper activate) nil) (defadvice viper-has-face-support-p (around fuck-viper activate) nil)
These might very well disable more than you want, though; caveat emptor.]
Štěpán
_______________________________________________ implementations-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/implementations-list
On 2011-01-24 22:28, Štěpán Němec wrote:
Thomas Hisch <[email protected]> writes:
Today I realized that the vimpulse module is the cause of the color-highlighting problem in ido in my emacs setup.
(remove-hook 'minibuffer-setup-hook 'viper-minibuffer-setup-sentinel) ;; post-ddfcd16209c575 Vimpulse makes also these two necessary: (defadvice viper-set-minibuffer-overlay (around fuck-viper activate) nil) (defadvice viper-has-face-support-p (around fuck-viper activate) nil)
These might very well disable more than you want, though; caveat emptor.
Thomas and Štěpán, do you consider the vi-keys-in-minibuffer behavior useful in itself, despite Viper's glitches? Unless I re-implement it myself, this behavior will be gone in the next version of Vimpulse. (If I do implement it, I think it ought to be disabled by default, to avoid confusion.) -- Vegard
Vegard Øye <[email protected]> writes:
Thomas and Štěpán, do you consider the vi-keys-in-minibuffer behavior useful in itself, despite Viper's glitches?
I imagine some people might like it, but not me. It was one of the first things I disabled when starting to use Viper. It's somewhat similar to shell vi emulation -- switching to and from insert mode for quick single-line editing feels like more trouble than it's worth to me.
Unless I re-implement it myself, this behavior will be gone in the next version of Vimpulse. (If I do implement it, I think it ought to be disabled by default, to avoid confusion.)
I agree, FWIW. Štěpán
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 06:55:55PM +0100, Štěpán Němec wrote:
Vegard Øye <[email protected]> writes:
Thomas and Štěpán, do you consider the vi-keys-in-minibuffer behavior useful in itself, despite Viper's glitches?
I imagine some people might like it, but not me. It was one of the first things I disabled when starting to use Viper. It's somewhat similar to shell vi emulation -- switching to and from insert mode for quick single-line editing feels like more trouble than it's worth to me.
FWIW, I do use the vi-keys-in-minibuffer behaviour (and also vi emulation in bash/zsh), but it's probably something I could learn to live without.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Stephen Bach <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 06:55:55PM +0100, Štěpán Němec wrote:
Vegard Øye <[email protected]> writes:
Thomas and Štěpán, do you consider the vi-keys-in-minibuffer behavior useful in itself, despite Viper's glitches?
I imagine some people might like it, but not me. It was one of the first things I disabled when starting to use Viper. It's somewhat similar to shell vi emulation -- switching to and from insert mode for quick single-line editing feels like more trouble than it's worth to me.
FWIW, I do use the vi-keys-in-minibuffer behaviour (and also vi emulation in bash/zsh), but it's probably something I could learn to live without.
I don't use VI mode in the mini buffer myself. I find it also to be more trouble than it's worth.
2011-01-25 20:03 Tim Harper:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Stephen Bach <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 06:55:55PM +0100, Štěpán Němec wrote:
Vegard Øye <[email protected]> writes:
Thomas and Štěpán, do you consider the vi-keys-in-minibuffer behavior useful in itself, despite Viper's glitches?
I imagine some people might like it, but not me. It was one of the first things I disabled when starting to use Viper. It's somewhat similar to shell vi emulation -- switching to and from insert mode for quick single-line editing feels like more trouble than it's worth to me.
FWIW, I do use the vi-keys-in-minibuffer behaviour (and also vi emulation in bash/zsh), but it's probably something I could learn to live without.
I don't use VI mode in the mini buffer myself. I find it also to be more trouble than it's worth.
+1 However, I have a dual Emacs/vi background anyway (used to use Emacs for "large" things and vi for "small" things), so I could well imagine that die-hard vi users would prefer vi-keys-in-minibuffer. I presume this discussion is about what should be the default behavior, not whether vi-keys-in-minibuffer should be dropped completely. Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701 Semantic Publication workshop, May 29 or May 30, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece Submission deadline February 28, http://SePublica.mywikipaper.org
participants (6)
-
Christoph LANGE -
Stephen Bach -
Thomas Hisch -
Tim Harper -
Vegard Øye -
Štěpán Němec