vim languages

[wrobell]

On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:16:29PM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 08:31:48PM +0200, Pawel Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
> > > > > > any comments?
> > > > > The basic packages should be 'low reqs' and 'high reqs' (which
> > > > > translates to -- no langs and all langs). Anything in between should be
> > > > > left to ppl directly interested.
> > > >
> > > > "All-or-nothing" isn't the best choice...
> > > > I think that there should be 3 possibilities:
> > > > - vim like in current packages we know. It would be nice to keep it.
> > > > - vim-tiny (or minimal) - for monks
> > > > - vim-full - for those who like all the bells and whistles
> > > What's the difference between current vim and vim-full?
> > 
> > AFAIR current vim has only perl enabled by default.
> > Or only perl was enabled some time ago...
> 
> So maybe let's enable perl and python, keeping tcl and ruby disabled
> until someone proves that (s)he really needs them.

as i know there is some ruby based outliner in the world... so it will
be required at some stage. but ruby is huge, so having it by default...

i am from python camp... but on other side i can understand people who use
ruby and hate python for some reason. having it just to use vim is sick,
too.

what is even strange... try one of 'help {tcl,perl,python,ruby,mzscheme}-dynamic'
and you will find at the very end of help file, that windows based build
supports dynamic library loading. crap.

regards,

    wrobell <wrobell at pld-linux.org>