Tickets :: Comment on [#10] Complex path related issue

Your Email Address
Spam protection	Enter the letters below: ______ _____ _ ______ ____ \| ____\| __ \ \| \| ____\| _ \ \| \|__ \| \|__) \| \| \| \|__ \| \|_) \| \| __\| \| ___/ \| \| __\| \| _ < \| \| \| \| \| \|__\| \| \|____\| \|_) \| \|_\| \|_\| \____/\|______\|____/
Comment	> This is really an issue; I will try to describe how I am dealing with it: > > The natural workaround (from my point of view) was to introduce a BufReadPre > auto-command, which would expand the path: > > 1) :edit testdir:TESTFILE.TXT > 2) the BufReadPre autocommand kicks in, notices that the filename > uses a rooted > logical name, and instead of opening > testdir:TESTFILE.TXT > it translates the logical and opens > USRDSK:<ZAY.WORK.TESTDIR.TEST_3>TESTFILE.TXT > 3) the write then behaves as expected > > Alas, this is not possible. An autocommand is not allowed (by vim) to change > the name of the file to be opened (security reasons). > > --- > Since the approach above did not work, I am now dealing with this > with a BufRead > (i.e. BufReadPost) autocommand: > > if has('vms') > autocmd BufRead,BufWritePost * nested call ReopenFileIfNecessary() > endif > > 1) :edit testdir:TESTFILE.TXT > 2) vim opens testdir:TESTFILE.TXT > 3) as a post-read action, vim calls ReopenFileIfNecessary(), which > detects that > a rooted logical (testdir) is used in the name, calls > system("write sys$output f$search(\"testdir:TESTFILE.TXT\")") > to translate this to > USRDSK:<ZAY.WORK.TESTDIR.TEST_3>TESTFILE.TXT > and then opens this file immediately. > > The user doesn't even notice that testdir:TESTFILE.TXT was ever > opened (the file > only flashes there for a split second). However, it is really opened, and it > stays in history. That is ugly: suppose I am past step 3, so I am > editing file > USRDSK:<ZAY.WORK.TESTDIR.TEST_3>TESTFILE.TXT, and want to use Ctrl-O > to go back > to where I was in step 1. When I press Ctrl-O, I go back one step in history, > i.e. to testdir:TESTFILE.TXT, at which point ReopenFileIfNecessary() > is called > and I "slide" back to step 3. (2Ctrl-O solves this, of course.) > > Additionally, it is ugly because I am not really opening > testdir:TESTFILE.TXT as > requested. > > --- > Is the desired behaviour clear? If I edit testdir:TESTFILE.TXT > (suppose the name > of the file stays the same, i.e. I do NOT reopen the file using the physical > path), is it clear that using :write should write a new version of > the file in > TEST_3? >
Attachment
Watch this ticket