[implementations-list] Early implementation of new VIM-like mode

Wed Jul 1 20:00:28 CEST 2009

Hello Frank,
and thanks for the nice comments. I'm going to take a look at your code
really soon, and, to tell the whole truth, out of frustration from
navigating in kludge-world, I opened a file today, yavimc.el, that stands
for yet another vim clone. I wasn't still sure I wanted to yell it to the
world, but yeah, I think writing something from scratch is maybe the right
solution. I don't know if it's the "productive" solution. Maybe it isn't.
But still I don't like kludge world, and I'm not earning money from this, so
personal interest and enjoyment comes first. This said, can I join? XD
I was trying vim-mode just now, and I must say it's very responsive, and
handles the basic things nicely :) I'll take a look at the code now!
Cheers,
Alessandro

2009/7/1 Frank Fischer <frank.fischer at mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de>

> Hallo,
>
> the recent development of vimpulse encouraged me to think again about a
> new VIM-mode for Emacs.  I'm one of those who think that implementing a
> new vim-mode from scratch might be easier and more powerful than
> extending viper.
>
> In this post I'd like to present you an early result of my attempts.
> Currently I call is just 'vim-mode', but that name is not important.
> The code is very modular (I hope) and built around an own keymap
> structure.  This means vim-mode does not use the default Emacs-keymaps
> but handles all events within its own data structures.
>
> The handling of keymaps is an independent subsystem.  Commands and
> motions can be defined independently and operators (commands with
> motions, I call them 'complex' commands) can be combined with arbitrary
> motions.  In fact, a motion is just a function returning one or two
> positions in the buffer.
>
> Furthermore, vim-mode supports mapping of commands.  This is a quiet
> powerful feature: many more complicated commands can be defined by
> simple mappings without the need of an own implementation.  For example
> the command "x" is defined
>
> (vim:def-map "x" "dl")
>
> and "O" is defined
>
> (vim:def-map "O" (kbd "0 i RET <up> TAB"))
>
> look at the file 'vim-maps.el' for more examples.  (OK, I'm not sure if
> those definitions are correct in all cases, but they seem to work OK
> for me).
>
> You can find the code at
>
> http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~fifr/downloads/vim-mode.tgz<http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/%7Efifr/downloads/vim-mode.tgz>
>
> and a mercurial repository at
>
> http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~fifr/repos/vim-mode<http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/%7Efifr/repos/vim-mode>
>
> Just open the file 'vim.el' and evaluate it.  Don't forget to read the
> comments in 'vim.el'
>
> I hope that this code can convince some of you of this approach in favor
> for extending viper (although vimpulse is really great - I use it every
> day, especially when developing vim-mode ;) - I think vim-mode is worth
> further development and as the potential to be even better than viper +
> vimpulse).
>
> Any comments, suggestions or patches are very welcome.
>
> Greetings,
> Frank
>
> _______________________________________________
> implementations-list mailing list
> implementations-list at lists.ourproject.org
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/implementations-list
>