RSpec and GEMS DSL Keyword Additions to ruby.vim?

[Rob Muhlestein-2]

Downloaded the latest ruby-vim but still don't see the following
keywords in ruby.vim. I've added them to my own but would a patch to the
ruby.vim in this project be worth it? If so, I'll submit what I have.

RSpec DSL:

  context
  context_setup
  setup
  specify
  context_teardown
  teardown

GEMS DSL:
  require_gem
  (more I'll look up if worth it)

These DSLs are pretty mainstream and I think would be worth inclusion
for much the same reason that the Rails DSL addition to ruby also seems
worth it.

--
Rob Muhlestein
http://rob.muhlestein.net

_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
vim-ruby-devel@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel

[Gavin Sinclair]

On 1/11/07, Rob Muhlestein <rob@...> wrote:
>
> RSpec DSL:
>
>   context
>   context_setup
>   setup
>   specify
>   context_teardown
>   teardown

Sounds good.

> GEMS DSL:
>   require_gem
>   (more I'll look up if worth it)

"require_gem" is deprecated in favour of "gem".  Maybe "require_gem"
should be coloured something ugly to alert people.

Gavin
_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
vim-ruby-devel@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel

[Rob Muhlestein-2]

> "require_gem" is deprecated in favour of "gem".  Maybe "require_gem"
> should be coloured something ugly to alert people.

Ok. Before I tweek this, what is the module name for CVS checkout? Any
chance of moving project to SVN?

--
Rob Muhlestein
http://rob.muhlestein.net

_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
vim-ruby-devel@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel

[Doug Kearns]

G'day Rob,

On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 04:25:30PM -0500, Rob Muhlestein wrote:

> Downloaded the latest ruby-vim but still don't see the following
> keywords in ruby.vim. I've added them to my own but would a patch to the
> ruby.vim in this project be worth it? If so, I'll submit what I have.
>
> RSpec DSL:
>
>   context
>   context_setup
>   setup
>   specify
>   context_teardown
>   teardown
>
> GEMS DSL:
>   require_gem
>   (more I'll look up if worth it)
>
> These DSLs are pretty mainstream and I think would be worth inclusion
> for much the same reason that the Rails DSL addition to ruby also seems
> worth it.

Personally I'd prefer these (with the exception of require_gem/gem) were
not added to ruby.vim.  I think that file should simply be for
highlighting the 'core language'.

Regards,
Doug
_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
vim-ruby-devel@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel

[Nikolai Weibull-11]

On 1/31/07, Doug Kearns <dougkearns@...> wrote:

> G'day Rob,
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 04:25:30PM -0500, Rob Muhlestein wrote:
> > Downloaded the latest ruby-vim but still don't see the following
> > keywords in ruby.vim. I've added them to my own but would a patch to the
> > ruby.vim in this project be worth it? If so, I'll submit what I have.
> >
> > RSpec DSL:
> >
> >   context
> >   context_setup
> >   setup
> >   specify
> >   context_teardown
> >   teardown
> >
> > GEMS DSL:
> >   require_gem
> >   (more I'll look up if worth it)
> >
> > These DSLs are pretty mainstream and I think would be worth inclusion
> > for much the same reason that the Rails DSL addition to ruby also seems
> > worth it.
>
> Personally I'd prefer these (with the exception of require_gem/gem) were
> not added to ruby.vim.  I think that file should simply be for
> highlighting the 'core language'.

Yes, thank you.

A couple of months ago it would have been assert_X that someone would
have wanted.  What will the scenario be in six months?

Please add stuff like this in your after/syntax/ruby.vim file instead.

  nikolai
_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
vim-ruby-devel@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel

[Hugh Sasse]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Nikolai Weibull wrote:

> On 1/31/07, Doug Kearns <dougkearns@...> wrote:
> > G'day Rob,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 04:25:30PM -0500, Rob Muhlestein wrote:
> > > Downloaded the latest ruby-vim but still don't see the following
> > > keywords in ruby.vim. I've added them to my own but would a patch to the
        [Rspec, gem keywords and comments trimmed]
> > Personally I'd prefer these (with the exception of require_gem/gem) were
> > not added to ruby.vim.  I think that file should simply be for
> > highlighting the 'core language'.
>
> Yes, thank you.

I'd agree with leaving them out of the ruby filetype for the
reason you give here...
>
> A couple of months ago it would have been assert_X that someone would
> have wanted.  What will the scenario be in six months?
>
> Please add stuff like this in your after/syntax/ruby.vim file instead.

... but it might be useful to distribute recipies for after/syntax/ruby
so that people can add them correctly and easily.  Maybe vim tips
on the vim site is sufficient, but it would be nice to keep them near
the ruby vim stuff -- "All the ruby vim mods you could want in one box!".
>
>   nikolai

        Hugh
_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
vim-ruby-devel@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel

On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 10:48:49PM +1100, Doug Kearns wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 04:25:30PM -0500, Rob Muhlestein wrote:
> > Downloaded the latest ruby-vim but still don't see the following
> > keywords in ruby.vim. I've added them to my own but would a patch to the
> > ruby.vim in this project be worth it? If so, I'll submit what I have.
> >
> > RSpec DSL:
> >
> > GEMS DSL:
> >   require_gem

> Personally I'd prefer these (with the exception of require_gem/gem) were
> not added to ruby.vim.  I think that file should simply be for
> highlighting the 'core language'.

I agree.  I don't really mind that more and more functions in my
libraries show up in pretty lights on my screen, but I do think its a
bit odd.  Having functions from some libraries hightlighted in vim.ruby
based on popularity seems weird to me. Lots of libraries use "setup" as
a method, and the highlighting is going to get more and more
inconsistent.

Is there a way to load particular sets of highlighting depending on what
kind of ruby file is being edited? That would be nice. Or perhaps extra
files that if they are copied to the local .vim directory, they take
effect for that user?

Cheers,
Sam

_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
vim-ruby-devel@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel

[Rob Muhlestein-2]

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 14:42 -0800, Sam Roberts wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 10:48:49PM +1100, Doug Kearns wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 04:25:30PM -0500, Rob Muhlestein wrote:
> > > Downloaded the latest ruby-vim but still don't see the following
> > > keywords in ruby.vim. I've added them to my own but would a patch to the
> > > ruby.vim in this project be worth it? If so, I'll submit what I have.
> > >
> > > RSpec DSL:
> > >
> > > GEMS DSL:
> > >   require_gem
>
> > Personally I'd prefer these (with the exception of require_gem/gem) were
> > not added to ruby.vim.  I think that file should simply be for
> > highlighting the 'core language'.
>
> I agree.  I don't really mind that more and more functions in my
> libraries show up in pretty lights on my screen, but I do think its a
> bit odd.  Having functions from some libraries hightlighted in vim.ruby
> based on popularity seems weird to me. Lots of libraries use "setup" as
> a method, and the highlighting is going to get more and more
> inconsistent.
>
> Is there a way to load particular sets of highlighting depending on what
> kind of ruby file is being edited? That would be nice. Or perhaps extra
> files that if they are copied to the local .vim directory, they take
> effect for that user

Yeah, this is so trivial I haven't even thought about it any longer.
It's in my ruby.vim and that's good enough. There aren't enough keywords
to warrant a patch or a rspec.vim, which is a waiste anyway cause can't
easily detect syntax context since rpecs are all .rb files (got flamed
to death even asking if .spec might be something to consider).

--
Rob Muhlestein
http://rob.muhlestein.net

_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
vim-ruby-devel@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel

[Doug Kearns]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 08:14:11AM -0500, Rob Muhlestein wrote:

<snip>

> Any chance of moving project to SVN?

I'm completely indifferent but you're the second person to mention it.
Anyone else have any feelings either way?

Regards,
Doug
_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
vim-ruby-devel@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel

[Nikolai Weibull-11]

On 2/7/07, Doug Kearns <dougkearns@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 08:14:11AM -0500, Rob Muhlestein wrote:

> > Any chance of moving project to SVN?

> I'm completely indifferent but you're the second person to mention it.
> Anyone else have any feelings either way?

Git.

  nikolai
_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
vim-ruby-devel@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel

[Mark Guzman]

Doug Kearns wrote:
> I'm completely indifferent but you're the second person to mention it.
> Anyone else have any feelings either way?
>  
svn.
  --mark
_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
vim-ruby-devel@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel

[Hugh Sasse]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Nikolai Weibull wrote:

> On 2/7/07, Doug Kearns <dougkearns@...> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 08:14:11AM -0500, Rob Muhlestein wrote:
>
> > > Any chance of moving project to SVN?
>
> > I'm completely indifferent but you're the second person to mention it.
> > Anyone else have any feelings either way?
>
> Git.

:-) In British English that is a term of abuse! Given the context I
know it's not in this thread...

I can't build svn on the suns here, and haven't installed the blastwave.org
version yet, so I have a route out of that, if needed.

I don't suppose anyone has created a unified interface for all this?
There are so many flavours to chose from (all the obove, "moving over
to the DARCS side", etc).  The good thing about standards is anyone
can make their own, as someone's .sig used to say.

Are there any clear technical advantages of ... whatever?  ISTR that SVN
handles directorires better than CVS, and CVS handles renames better
than RCS, but where things are in this field now I don't know. With
them being open source I expect theres a bit of crossover and mutation
going on.
>
>   nikolai

        Hugh
_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
vim-ruby-devel@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel

[Nikolai Weibull-11]

On 2/7/07, Hugh Sasse <hgs@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
>
> > On 2/7/07, Doug Kearns <dougkearns@...> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 08:14:11AM -0500, Rob Muhlestein wrote:
> >
> > > > Any chance of moving project to SVN?
> >
> > > I'm completely indifferent but you're the second person to mention it.
> > > Anyone else have any feelings either way?
> >
> > Git.
>
> :-) In British English that is a term of abuse! Given the context I
> know it's not in this thread...

Git.

(Only kidding.  I know about the words meaning.  But I wanted to keep
my answer short and to the point without any "I think we should use
Subversion because it has such a cool name" or "I think the developers
should use Bazaar because it's written in Python and I like Python and
my opinion matters even though I don't actually develop for vim-ruby
or anything but I want to download the bleeding-edge sources every
night and masturbate all over the new change-sets and since I only
have one hand free I'm not able to install another VCS".)

> Are there any clear technical advantages of ... whatever?  ISTR that SVN
> handles directorires better than CVS, and CVS handles renames better
> than RCS, but where things are in this field now I don't know. With
> them being open source I expect theres a bit of crossover and mutation
> going on.

Well, CVS is just plain bad.  SVN is just plain not much better.  For
this particular project, handling of renames is almost irrelevant, so
SVN doesn't offer anything relevant over CVS.  Going distributed is
nice, and Git is my favorite.  If there's actually going to be a
switch, I hope people take the time to look at the merits modern VCSs
offer.  And let me make my point very clear: SVN is /not/ a modern
VCS.

  nikolai
_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
vim-ruby-devel@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel

[Mark Guzman]

Nikolai Weibull wrote:
>
> Well, CVS is just plain bad.  SVN is just plain not much better.  For
> this particular project, handling of renames is almost irrelevant, so
> SVN doesn't offer anything relevant over CVS.  Going distributed is
> nice, and Git is my favorite.  If there's actually going to be a
> switch, I hope people take the time to look at the merits modern VCSs
> offer.  And let me make my point very clear: SVN is /not/ a modern
> VCS.
>  
SVN + SVK probably covers most of what you want out of vcs, with the
exception of signing. SVN also changes the history from per-file to
repository snapshots. I'm not entirely sure that this would help
anything in our case. I'm reasonably agnostic, though it's worth noting
that rubyforge doesn't support git,darcs,arch, or monotone currently
(afaik).
  --mark
_______________________________________________
vim-ruby-devel mailing list
vim-ruby-devel@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/vim-ruby-devel