On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 03:50:50PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Where it is feasible to implement it directly in python that sounds like a good idea to me since it would probably ease the future maintenance and allow more people to contribute to it.[...] If most things are already possible, then it should be possible to write Python functions that work as a nice interface for the functionality. Thus not change the C implementation of the Python interface.
Though for some of the suggested additions I imagine that it will negatively impact the performance and/ or be difficult to implement (e.g. getting the escaping right for eval(), reliably parsing the output of commands etc.). But that's something where ZyX probably can give more qualified comments than I could.
I see that differently, currently people will have to learn quite a bit of VimL to get anything useful done with the vim interface. For someone who is new to vim, but already knows python, a "pythonic" interface is much more useful then having to do eval("vimL_code()") all the time. Some of the people I converted to vim users will probably never touch VimL, but if it where possible to write plugins purely in python with a pythonic interface they could write plugins for themselves as well (since I also converted them to python ;))We also need to keep in mind that all the Vim functionality is nicely documented and there are examples, while if we add a different way to do this in Python this requires documenting how that works. Thus a script writer will have two sets of functionality to learn to use. It will be good to have "how it's done in Vim" to be very similar to "how it's done in Python". Otherwise it gets very complicated.
So, from that point of view the additions proposed by ZyX sound very good to me (whether implement in C or python, as long as it works "out of the box").
Regards, Andy -- On the sixth day God created man On the seventh day, man returned the favor.
pgpoXzLKZSHpT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
