[neomutt-users] Vim-Lover Wanted

Pietro Cerutti gahr at gahr.ch
Sun Feb 26 21:05:39 CET 2017

> On 26 Feb 2017, at 13:18, Guyzmo <z+mutt+neomutt at m0g.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 09:49:00AM +0100, toogley at mailbox.org wrote:
>>> On February 25, 2017 at 2:58 PM Richard Russon <rich at flatcap.org>
>>> wrote: I'm looking for a Vim-lover to help update these files.
>>> Technical assisstance will be available.
>> I think that's the wrong way of solving that, because its not
>> automated. Maybe we can refactor makedoc.c into a library and make
>> both our function/variable reference and our vim syntax files with
>> that?
> no need to make it a library to generate all we need from that tool.
>> Although i'd prefer a scripted solution for this, 
> yes, I agree it might be a good idea to make it a script. I've had a
> quick look at the source of makedoc, and found out that it's not really
> great. 
> For example in [line 344] there's a redefinition of the options_t types,
> as an enum and then as a struct? So all the new types we've added are
> actually non-documented. 

Please double check: the default is just fine in most cases.

> For efficiency, I could try rewriting makedoc.c in python, using the
> pyparsing library (and some C source code introspection) to extract
> needed information out of the source. If someone doesn't think it's a
> good idea (@ghar?) I'll abstain, otherwise I can put that in my TODO
> list.

Yup, so in six months' time to build mutt we'll need lua & python, great ;)

No, seriously, what is so wrong with poor makedoc.c that requires total annihilation and recreation in a different programming language?

Let's not diverge too much yet again and let's see if anybody volunteers for [topic].

Pietro Cerutti
gahr at gahr.ch

More information about the neomutt-users mailing list