Worth supporting 1.9 conditionally?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Worth supporting 1.9 conditionally?

Doug Kearns
G'day all,

I was just going to add some missing 1.9 syntax items and was curious
if anyone had strong feelings, either way, regarding configurable 1.9
support.

Thanks,
Doug
_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Worth supporting 1.9 conditionally?

Nikolai Weibull-11
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 20:41, Doug Kearns <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I was just going to add some missing 1.9 syntax items and was curious
> if anyone had strong feelings, either way, regarding configurable 1.9
> support.

Moderately strong opinion: Skip it.
_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Worth supporting 1.9 conditionally?

Tim Pope-2
In reply to this post by Doug Kearns


On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Doug Kearns <[hidden email]> wrote:
G'day all,

I was just going to add some missing 1.9 syntax items and was curious
if anyone had strong feelings, either way, regarding configurable 1.9
support.

Also opposed. Configurable 1.9 support might make sense if people only used 1.8 or 1.9 exclusively, which I imagine is pretty uncommon in this transition period.

I'm also curious what's missing. I know there are issues when 1.9 style symbol hash keys are reserved words (had to revert my own fix for that due to side effects). Perhaps -> should be highlighted (but what group?). Those are the only omissions I've noticed, speaking as someone who's spent the last month working in 1.9.

Cheers,
Tim

_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Worth supporting 1.9 conditionally?

Doug Kearns
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Tim Pope <[hidden email]> wrote:
<snip>

> I'm also curious what's missing. I know there are issues when 1.9 style
> symbol hash keys are reserved words (had to revert my own fix for that due
> to side effects).

Nothing interesting.  I just noticed some of the predefined constants/variables
were missing.  E.g. RUBY_ENGINE, __ENCODING__, __callee__ etc.

> Perhaps -> should be highlighted (but what group?).

I just stuck it in rubyOperators for those fond of rainbows.  I don't really
think it needs highlighting otherwise.  "->" and "lambda" are roughly analogous
to "||" and "or".

> Those are the only omissions I've noticed, speaking as someone who's spent
> the last month working in 1.9.

Longer than myself then. :)

Doug
_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel
Loading...