While I can't explain why things work the way they do, here is a custom
function that should do what you want (called Min); it takes a variable
number of arguments, flattens incoming lists into a single list and then
calls the built-in min. You can see that it uses the type() function to
figure out the type of the incoming argument (to answer another question
you asked herein):
function! Min( ... )
let collection = []
for entry in a:000
if ( type( entry ) == v:t_list )
call extend( collection, flatten( entry ) )
else
let collection += [ entry ]
endif
endfor
return min( collection )
endfunction
" Sample call
" echo Min(9, 22, [5, [3, 7]])
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 2:37 PM L A Walsh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2021/01/02 08:01, Tim Chase wrote
> > though a lot of vim stuff takes inspiration from
> > Python where min() is a vararg function letting
> > you do as the OP requests
> >
> > min(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, …)
> >
> > so it's a reasonable sort of hope/expectation.
> > It just doesn't happen to be a vim thing.
> >
> ---
> Is there any reason why vim couldn't have a simplified
> version, "Min" that takes a variable number of args
> rather than its current behavior of taking a fixed
> number (1) of "list-args"?
>
> I.e. it sounds like, by being declared "varargs",
> that min could take a variable number of args (?).
>
> Is a vim function capable of determining the type
> of the arg(s) passed to it? Like if I passed
> min(3,4,[1,2]), can vim determine that it got 3 arguments,
> where it knows that they are two "plain" args, and
> 1 is a "List" such that it could automatically expand "List" args,
> and "inline" its elements into 1 longer set of arguments
> that 'min' can return the value of?
>
> I.e., it seems like "min", rather than returning an "Error"
> when presented with multiple-args, could simply return the
> minimum of those args, _and_, if any of those args were a "List",
> like [1,2], then merge those args into the set of multiple
> args that was passed. This would mean that ([1,2]) would
> automatically expand its List into multiple arguments (1,2), and
> then return the "min" value, i.e. "doing the right thing", while
> keeping compatibility with current behavior (except for returning
> an error when unnecessary).
>
> Wouldn't that be possible for "min" and similar functions
> that can tell what the user wants, and just do it? (rather than
> returning an error that doesn't seem necessary or useful)
> > -tim
> >
> ---
> Thanks for the explanations! As you point out, vim, it
> seems, could do the right thing while remaining functionally
> compatible with older vim script.
>
> -Linda
>
> --
> --
> You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
> Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
> For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "vim_use" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_use/5FF6110E.7050102%40tlinx.org.
>
--
Salman
I, too, shall something make and glory in the making.
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_use/CANuxnEdT5fcqbQc5v8o2h8RiPrwqSgm9ew5jKyBxNBGo%3DiBo9g%40mail.gmail.com.
