Summary: | vim7 and latexsuite raises an error when opening a tex file | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Tom Martin (RETIRED) <slarti> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Vim Maintainers <vim> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: | vimrc |
Description
Tom Martin (RETIRED)
2004-11-29 10:52:52 UTC
worksforme... So... Could you try vim -i NONE -u NONE and see what happens? Okay, this is strange: vim -i NONE -u NONE: no error vim: no error gvim -i NONE -u NONE: no error gvim: error Ciaran, my .vimrc is near identical to yours, for your information. I can drop you a diff if you like. Hm, could you just attach the whole vimrc please? I'll try the "remove bits until it works" approach. Or you could do that if you prefer :) Created attachment 44996 [details]
vimrc
22:38 < p0g> ciaranm: gentoo bug #72837 is a vim problem 22:39 < ciaranm> p0g: you managed to figure it out? 22:42 < p0g> ciaranm: yeah 22:44 < p0g> ciaranm: in version7.txt is the following line: 22:44 < p0g> Skip over the expression in `=expr` when looking for comments, |, % and #. 22:44 < p0g> that happens in separate_nextcmd in ex_cmds.c 22:45 < p0g> but it always tries to skip that 22:45 < p0g> even if the command does not take a backtick expression as an argument 22:45 < p0g> the problem with vim-latex is that it defines a menu with `= in it 22:47 < ciaranm> ok, i see it 22:47 < ciaranm> hrm 22:47 < ciaranm> could just shove a backslash in vim-latex i 'spose The function in question is vim7/src/ex_docmd.c:separate_nextcmd, in particular this bit: #ifdef FEAT_EVAL /* Skip over `=expr` when wildcards are expanded. */ else if (p[0] == '`' && p[1] == '=') { p += 2; (void)skip_expr(&p); } #endif So, it's whether this is a vim issue or a vim-latex issue... I just tested this again, and the problem does not occur with app-editors/vim-7.0_alpha20050622. Do we just remove the block in its entirety? I have not checked with previous versions if it still occurs, but I would assume people who have unmasked vim7 are staying up to date with the latest. Block removed. |