Use shiftwidth() function instead of &sw

[tyru]

See vim/vim#578 for details.

With set shiftwidth=0, gg=G in filetype=vim buffer will result in removing all indents.
Because indent/vim.vim doesn't use shiftwidth() instead of accessing &sw directly.

This is same as vim-git.

[tpope]

Can we do this in a backwards compatible way?

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:18 PM Takuya Fujiwara notifications@github.com
wrote:

See vim/vim#578 vim/vim#578 for details.

With set shiftwidth=0, gg=G in filetype=vim buffer will result in removing
all indents.
Because indent/vim.vim doesn't use shiftwidth() instead of accessing &sw
directly.

This is same as vim-git.

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

#36
Commit Summary

• Use shiftwidth() function instead of &sw

File Changes

• M indent/gitconfig.vim
  https://github.com/tpope/vim-git/pull/36/files#diff-0 (6)

Patch Links:

• https://github.com/tpope/vim-git/pull/36.patch
• https://github.com/tpope/vim-git/pull/36.diff

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#36.

[tyru]

Hm, Okay...
I didn't think it was necessary because

1. shiftwidth() is implemented over 3 years ago.
2. I suppose someone who wants to use a latest indent plugin fetching from GitHub, may have a recent version of Vim.

But if you prefer the backwards compatible way, I will do that :)

[tpope]

OS X still ships a Vim without it; that alone is a sizable concern.

[tyru]

Okay :)
I'll do that.

[tyru]

Can we do this in a backwards compatible way?

Well, is that same for tpope/vim-liquid#13 and tpope/vim-haml#76 and tpope/vim-cucumber#39 ?

[tpope]

Yeah same for all.

[tyru]

Done it for all:

• Use shiftwidth() function instead of &sw #36 (This pull request)
• Use shiftwidth() function instead of &sw vim-liquid#13
• Use shiftwidth() function instead of &sw vim-haml#76
• Use shiftwidth() function instead of &sw vim-cucumber#39

[tpope]

Wow, I see that this is the officially endorsed solution in :help shiftwidth(), but boy is it convoluted. I'll be going with something more straightforward.

[tyru]

Ah, certainly b92af5f is enough.
Thanks however :)