Re: [Vim-latex-devel] Re: [Vim-latex-cvs] vimfiles/plugin imaps.vim,1.7,1.8

[Benji F. <be...@me...>]

Luc Hermitte wrote:
> * On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 06:54:47PM -0800, Srinath Avadhanula <srinath=
@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>=20
>>Therefore we could conceivably have ftplugin/c.vim containing lines
>>like:
>>let b:Imap_PlaceHolderStart =3D '?'
>>let b:Imap_PlaceHolderEnd =3D '?'
>>call IMAP('for', "for (??; ??; ??) {\n??\n}??", 'c')
>=20
>=20
> Indeed, but you loose flexibility in that case. The day the new languag=
e
> C% arise, it would not be able to take advantage of the C mapping for
> 'for' as it defines a new operator : '??'=20
> ;-)

      My proposal (see other strands on this thread) also deals with this.
[snip]
>=20
> And I definitively agree, functions like IMAPS() should be independent
> of any placeholder characters. Somehow, '<+' and '+>' (as well as '=AB'=
 &
> '=BB' today) look like placeholders characters, and more important: the=
y
> look like things that some languages may use -- like for instance '=AB'
> and '=BB' in LaTeX documents written in French.
>=20
>=20
>>And I think each language choosing its own placeholders is most
>>elegant and robust...
>=20
> =20
> 100% agree.

      Did I snip anything that argues against the IMAP(ft, lhs, ...)=20
proposal?

					--Benji