Hi Bram
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 1:14:21 PM UTC-3, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> I wonder if you read my proposal wrong, or perhaps I didn't explain
> something properly. I read your response, and can only say that it's
> all covered in what I proposed.
>
> I think it may be caused by the no
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 4:36:48 PM UTC-3, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> Thanks for the constructive feedback. I appreciate it, that you as the
> Neovim creator give feedback here.
Hi Christian, I also appreciate you taking notice.
> It's also appreciated, that certain
> bugs, which have
On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 6:08:52 PM UTC-3, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. I think it's time to sketch the upcoming work.
> It appears some thought that sockets was the end of it, that's not so.
Bram
I suggest to only focus on the job control feature, at least for now. The
> NeoVim is free to follow. It appears NeoVim's ideas about jobs and
> channels are quite different. And it seems to be quite complicated.
Bram
I'd love to see Neovim and Vim have the same API for shared features, in fact I
have read the documentation about Vim's new channel feature and saw it
My last post(https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vim_dev/lylNU4Na2Nk) gave
me the impression that the lack of multithreading/message queue/event loop was a
problem to be solved in vim, and I this patch has a potential solution that has
little impact on the current code.
Any chance a dev(Bram,
After marc weber's [thread about improving
vim](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vim_use/IKha1xx6V8Y) I decided to
download the source code and try to fix what I believe to be a great deficiency
of vim: Impossibility to run vim commands from another thread.
Why is this feature so important?
