[implementations-list] Broken selection in latest Vimpulse (r199)?

Sat Apr 10 16:09:58 CEST 2010

> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:21:32 +0200
> From: stepnem at gmail.com
>
> Btw, I haven't really looked thoroughly at the implementation, but
> while applying the changes, all those `(defun
> vimpulse-{a,inner}-{w,W}ord ...)' immediately stroke my eye --
> doesn't this just cry for some kind of macro that would define all
> such things for you or at least avoid some of the boilerplate?

It definitely does, but things aren't set in stone yet. I'll keep
things verbose for now, and return to the macro issue before release.

(Even with a macro, I'd still want to define each object one by one.
"Inner word" and "inner paren" mean very different things, for
example, and some objects may have "linewise" tendencies while others
do not (not implemented yet). So to some degree one needs to think of
objects as individuals, even though they belong to the same species.)

> Actually I think you could (should) rather have released 0.3.1 as
> 0.4, at least, or even 1.0. The amount of work (and improvements)
> done to the package seems to call for a major version bump.

I see your point. 0.3.1 was originally intended as a maintenance
release, dealing with the large backlog of uncommitted patches which
had accumulated at that point. It ended up dealing with a lot more, of
course, mainly because I couldn't use Vimpulse the way I wanted (and I
use Vimpulse for coding at Vimpulse!) without rewriting Visual mode.

The next version will introduce even more code, and that code needs to
get out of the controlled environment of my own computer and put to
the test by other users. The bugs I encounter personally are, after
all, fixed right away; it's the bugs discovered by others which are
really elusive, from my point of view. We all use our software in
slightly different ways, and that's what that makes user feedback so
/literally/ invaluable. I am very grateful to all the people who take
their time to complain when Vimpulse isn't working out, because it is
vital to the maturement of the code.

To be honest, I don't know what the next version /really/ should be
called, but suffice to say 1.0 is still far off. Only with the help
of you, the users, can we arrive at such a stable number. ;)

Vegard 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Nye Windows 7: PCen som passer for deg. Finn ut mer.
http://windows.microsoft.com/shop