Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Show brief comments (updated patches) #385

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tobiasgrosser
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

Our complete flag handling has been completely broken. In ancient times,
we had to calculate the bits in the complete flags ourselves, but
nowadays cindex.py has a nice interface based on named parameters.  However,
we have still been passing the ancient complete flags to this interface,
which meant we always set complete_macros=True and all other flags to
false independently of the actual complete options set. This patch fixes
this. It ensures that we pass complete flags as named parameters which
makes the individual flags work again.

Based on patches from Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr@gmail.com>
We add a new option g:clang_include_brief_comments which includes brief
comments in the completion results

This change also introduces routines to translate python to vim data
structures. In an earlier review I saw performance regressions, but I
could not reproduce them before. I also did not include further
optimizing patches as they caused problems in the presence of '\n'.

Based on patches from Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr@gmail.com>
@tobiasgrosser
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This is a reworked version of #199

@xavierd
Copy link
Owner

xavierd commented Mar 8, 2014

Can you add a comment on toVimRepr to state that pyeval can be used instead? As far as I remember this was added "recently" and certain popular distribution didn't package a newer enough vim.

Rest looks great!

@tobiasgrosser
Copy link
Collaborator Author

On 03/08/2014 04:43 AM, Xavier Deguillard wrote:

Can you add a comment on toVimRepr to state that pyeval can be used instead? As far as I remember this was added "recently" and certain popular distribution didn't package a newer enough vim.

I don't get your comment. Something like:

"We can not currently use pyeval, as it is not yet available in
common vim installations. However, this functionality could be
replaced by pyeval at a later point."

So are you saying pyeval would always do the right conversions?

Tobias

@xavierd
Copy link
Owner

xavierd commented Mar 9, 2014

Yes, I believe pyeval can be used instead of the toVimRepr function yes, and should also be much faster.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants