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

Thu Jul 2 01:50:23 CEST 2009

You made a good summary of what was pushing me to think about a new modal
editing/vi core.
In one word, we need a modal interface that's designed to be extensible.
Actually, I think viper isn't that great to work on top to get #1. Adding
something as simple as '< '> marks requires quite some kludges:

   1. modify some validation function about register names (yes, viper uses
   the same function to validate both marks and register names, can't remember
   if in the ' or in the m command
   2. modify the ex parser, so that it accepts < and > as markers
   3. modify viper-ex so that it accepts another argument to initialize the
   starting ex string, or just hard-code the string initialization in the
   viper-ex function, making it aware of the existence of vimpulse.

So, a minimum of 3 function redefinitions is needed to just add something as
simple as 2 marks. And still, the result of everything is a big kludge,
because viper's marker are accessed with get-register, the same function
used for vi's registers.
If I understood correctly, they are saved in this fashion, in some kind of
associative table (I didn't look at the actual implementation) (let N be the
character that identifies the register/mark):
register(N): tab[N]
marker(N): tab[N - ?a + 1]
This is made under the assumption that the valid marks are only [a-z].
Even though I know that the ascii code for < and > is less than the ascii
code for ?a, I don't know if the register table is used for stuff other than
registers and marks. And even being positive about it, this would still
remain a kludge.

Maybe I'm pessimist, but I think that faithfully emulating vim means
maintaining a parallel viper version. A kludge-ridden one, I daresay :)
My 2 cents.

Alessandro

PS. With this I don't want to say I absolutely want faithful vim emulation,
I just want to underline that working on top of viper isn't that great even
for that purpose.
2009/7/1 Marius Andersen <rezonatix3 at yahoo.no>

>
> Let's get philosophical for a moment. What is it we "really" want to
> accomplish by writing a new package?
>
>    1. FAITHFUL VIM EMULATION inside Emacs. Key for key, the editing
>       should be as identical to Vim's as possible. "Vim is fundamentally
>       correct, but Emacs has some nice extensions like AUCTeX and
>       Org-mode."
>
>    2. MODAL INTERFACE to Emacs' powers. Provide a way to define modal
>       key bindings, and map them to the word/sentence/paragraph
>       functions included with Emacs. "Emacs is Emacs, but modal editing
>       is a good idea."
>
> There is a myriad of small differences between Vim and Emacs. For example,
> Vim's regular expressions are slighty different from Emacs'. Should we write
> a translator from one to the other, or do we simply bind `/' to
> `isearch-forward' and encourage the user to adjust? Or, when jumping back to
> previous locations in the buffer, Vim's `C-o' works slighty different than
> Emacs' `C-u C-SPC'. Do we re-implement this functionality, or should we
> stick with Emacs' function?
>
> The further we go down this road, the more obvious it becomes that a
> package that views another editor as the standard can never be very pretty.
> Viper is an emulator, and it takes tons and tons of replacement code to
> overrule all the Emacs specifics. It's a self-reinforcing strategy, too:
> once you've rewritten one function, you typically also have to rewrite the
> larger system it was part of, and so on.
>
> In short, if #1 is the goal, stay with Viper.
>
> However, and this is where we get philosophical again, there's something
> odd about the current state of things. Isn't the very point of using Emacs
> the power to extend and program it to one's liking? And yet, as we have
> seen, extending Viper turned out to be a "hackish" and unwieldy process.
> Worse still, there are few general solutions: e.g., adding text objects by
> redefining a function means the same function must be redefined again when
> adding something else. (For the record, this hack was my suggestion.)
>
> As someone said, the only way to improve your work or life is by
> understanding and examining why you do what you do.
>
> What we "really" want, I assert, is not all the specifics of Vim, but the
> general concept of modal editing -- and the ability to combine that concept
> with the rest of Emacs' powers in unlimited ways. (Of course, since one of
> those powers is the ability to faithfully emulate vi, the "purists" could
> get their golden standard simply by using this modal interface as a
> front-end to Viper's emulation functions.)
>
> But there are far more interesting ways to employ a modal interface than
> just reimplementing vi. For instance, think of text objects again. They
> aren't just a nifty "Vim trick", but a very reuseable idea. Wouldn't it be
> wicked cool to be able to do
>
>    `cxw' -- transpose words (`M-t' in Emacs)
>    `cxb' -- transpose blocks (`C-M-t' in Emacs)
>    `cxs' -- transpose sentences (`transpose-sentences' in Emacs)
>    `cxp' -- transpose paragraphs (`transpose-paragraphs' in Emacs)
>
> If we could bind `cx' to a command without overwriting the binding for `c',
> then this would be easy. Indeed, this is how Vim's `map' command works. But
> how to implement it in Emacs?
>
> Well, Frank Fischer is definitely onto something. Myself, I imagine some
> list of modal bindings -- wherein `c' maps to `change-command', `cx' to
> `transpose-object-command', and so on. Then, `change-command' calls the
> function `modal-read' to read input from the keyboard:
>
>    (modal-read expectation)
>
> Here, `expectation' is what the calling command expects to get.
> `change-command' may call it like (modal-read motion), where `motion'
> somehow defines the keys that make up a text motion, like `3w'. Now, if the
> expectation is not met -- `x' is not a motion -- then `modal-read' will look
> up `cx' in the modal bindings list, and find `transpose-object-command'.
> Control will then be passed on to `transpose-object-command', which may read
> from the keyboard with (modal-read text-object).
>
> Anyway, the key is orthogonality. The key parser should be orthogonal to
> commands, motions, text objects or whatever creative innovation may come
> along. That way we can add our own, custom modal keys, without redefinitions
> of fixed code, which are difficult to share.
>
> I've probably said more than enough for now. But please, give some thought
> to what we really "want" from a total rewrite. With #1, Vim is the limit.
> With #2, Emacs is.
>
>
>      _________________________________________________________
> Alt i ett. Få Yahoo! Mail med adressekartotek, kalender og
> notisblokk. http://no.mail.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> implementations-list mailing list
> implementations-list at lists.ourproject.org
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/implementations-list
>