Use binstubs only if they exist #36

alindeman opened this Issue Mar 16, 2013 · 6 comments


None yet
3 participants

Thoughts on a value for g:vroom_use_binstubs (maybe 2?) that uses binstubs if the appropriate one exists, but if not, falls back to default behavior?

If you agree, I could try to hack something together :)


charlietanksley commented Mar 16, 2013

This sounds like a good idea to me. It seems like it should maybe be the default eventually, at least if you want to use binstubs.

Re: implementation. The options for this plugin are getting unwieldy. I do see why they are all needed, but I think we can do a redesign that makes all the option stuff more elegant and easier to reason about. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what would happen if you used 2 for the optional bistubs value. If I understand correctly, VimL has us use 1 and 0 as booleans. So I'm a little leery of throwing another value in there (I could be wrong about that, though!). So for now I'd add another option g:use_binstubs_optionally or something. When someone gets around to changing the way we deal with all these options, that will play nicely with the others.

Seem reasonable? Am I missing something?

MOAR options :) Would changing it to be the default now be a breaking change?


charlietanksley commented Mar 18, 2013

I'm not entirely sure what constitutes a breaking change. It is a change in current behavior that is unexpected. I can't say for sure whether it would actually mess anyone up, but I suppose it could.

My instinct is to create a version 2.0 branch, add your feature as the default there, and then when we are ready we can transition to the new version. I have a couple of ideas for things we should change in 2.0 (I have an issue here about handling options in a more sane way, and I really want to get tests around this thing so we can merge pull requests more quickly and confidently). Reasonable?


charlietanksley commented Mar 18, 2013

I think we need @skalnik to chime in here; I'm not entirely sure what to do and I don't feel completely comfortable making any calls like this without his input.


skalnik commented Mar 18, 2013

I think a 2.0 branch w/this being the default there makes sense. I'm definitely in favor of making options a bit more sane :)

Tests would be AMAZING. Like I've mentioned in the past, I don't know of a good way of doing tests other than having sample ruby projects with different test setups and having a small script that automates opening up vim, running vim-vroom, and then having the tester manually ensure it ran. @charlietanksley I remember you mentioned something about tests, what was that again?


charlietanksley commented Mar 18, 2013

@skalnik Here is what I started: It works for what it does, but I think either one of the new VimL test frameworks (which I can't really figure out 😦) or some custom steps using Aruba would be a better way to go.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment