fixes warning about b:undo_ftplugin not existing, and double loading of plugin in eg, macVim

[bigfish]

Somehow the b:undo_ftplugin was not being set by the html plugins ? Just added a check if it exists, and change the assignment.

Also, b:did_ftplugin was not being set, which was causing the above error to show up twice, since MacVim has this plugin in its runtime (so it might be nice to update their version also). Seems I was not the only one to encounter this error : http://code.google.com/p/macvim/issues/detail?id=327

[tpope]

I'd like to understand what went wrong rather than blindly guarding against an edge-case that should be impossible. Are you using markdown.vim as it ships with Vim, or did you download and install the latest from GitHub?

[bigfish]

So I investigated a bit more and found that the culprit was another html.vim script I had in my .vim/ftplugin folder. It delegated to xml.vim. But at no point was b:undo_ftplugin set to anything, which was causing the b:undo_ftplugin += "..." line in the markdown script to error. So it is not impossible.. if you have some flaky html.vim which does not set b:undo_ftplugin in your runtimepath ahead of the markdown filetype plugin, then this will happen. I decided to remove this html plugin, since as we all (should) know, HTML != XML

but shouldn't the b:did_ftplugin be set to 1, to prevent double loading ?

Dave

On 2011-09-20, at 2:32 PM, Tim Pope wrote:

I'd like to understand what went wrong rather than blindly guarding against an edge-case that should be impossible. Are you using markdown.vim as it ships with Vim, or did you download and install the latest from GitHub?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#7 (comment)

[tpope]

Yeah, it should. I just killed the unlet. Thanks.

Beyond that, I really don't want to dedicate code to coddling broken configs.

[bigfish]

Sure, I understand.. I'm just glad I figured out what the issue was, and now I can remove my fork of the plugin, and go back to using the original one.

On 2011-09-24, at 7:07 PM, Tim Pope wrote:

Yeah, it should. I just killed the unlet. Thanks.

Beyond that, I really don't want to dedicate code to coddling broken configs.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#7 (comment)