>
> First I'd like to state MacVim is awesome. Thanks for all the hard
> work Bjorn. One issues that has always bugged me about gvim is shell
> integration. I'm not sure how others feel about this but for me its
> would be awesome if MacVim had true shell integration. I tried to
> compile it with the vimshell patch but no love.
>
> What do others think?
I'd like to see a shell in vim, but I don't think MacVim is the place
to add it. This should be added to vim core.
The vimshell patch looks interesting. Which problems did you face when
you tried to use it?
My biggest gripe with a missing shell is that doing `:make` in vim
freezes a whole window. This was really annoying in carbon vim, but
it's not that bad in MacVim, since the windows are independent -- so
you lose only one window :-P
Nico
I also tried to have a shell, but no success.
> Perhaps it could be integrated outside of vim, like the way Coda, from
> Panic, has shell integration. Since MacVim is a cocoa app maybe it
> could just be another tab or something. May the cocoa part of MacVim
> could split the window with the bottom part being terminal and the top
> part being vim. Pathfinder from Cocoatech does something like this
> using iTerm. See http://www.cocoatech.com/opensource.php. Pathfinder
> integrates the terminal in a drawer/shelf. Personally I hate drawers/
> shelf and prefer the way Panic does it in Coda.
>
> What do others think?
I was about to say +1 but I'd rather say +1000
D.Morel
Nevermind, just found it on the web page: "Note, however, that so far
only the text mode VIM is fully supported, but support for the GUI
version is on its way."
It seems lots of people would like shell integration. I personally
probably wouldn't use it, but then again, maybe I would if it worked
nicely.
Like Nico I think this kind of feature should ideally be added to the
Vim source code, but that is not something I can do. Getting vimshell
to work might be a good "temporary" fix, but again, I don't think I
can do that.
As for having a shell in a split view under the vim view (which holds
the tabs, scrollers and text view); that is indeed something that I
could do and I will look into it when I get a chance.
However, this kind of functionality would be best suited as a plugin
of some sort. It would probably not be a good idea I start bloating
MacVim with lots of functionality that other ports of Vim lack. (It
would make MacVim nice, but it would no longer be Vim, right? Hmm...I
haven't already gone too far, have I?)
I have been thinking of getting around such issues by creating some
kind of a plugin architecture (and distribute plugins separately from
MacVim), but now we're talking weeks worth of coding so that will be
far into the future.
Still, I will keep thinking about it. I welcome more suggestions.
/Björn
By the way, what are you using the shell for in vim? In my experience,
a lot of things can be done quite efficiently from within vim with a
few keybindings and with using `:!` (e.g. `:!ls`) every now and then.
> Since the shell seems to work in vim i'm not sure how much of a
> priority it is for them to fix it in gvim. It seems that utilizing
> open source like iTerm or something and integrating that into MacVim
> may be the way to go.
I use gvim on linux as well, and I'd prefer if MacVim would stay 'just
vim' (with some os x integration). Tim's suggestion (provide a hook
into select()) sounds reasonable to me (but I'm not too familiar with
that :-P).
Nico
> I don't really see the need for it (Terminal on bottom half) and think
> that the effort put into could be better used elsewhere.
Bottom half maybe not, but new tab yes.
> 1) What's wrong with just using :! command?
Doesn't run in real-time, no control, etc. For very long scripts, this
is annoying.
> 2) With the :! command you can just map commands to that that, one
> example of this is the Rails.vim script that works extremely well and
> is very powerful.
> 3) There doesn't seem to be an equal amount of gain vs work put into
> this, Vim is text editor, it does one tool and it does it very well,
> concurrently the Terminal is made for these commands and will have a
> lot more power than what would be possible through a plugin.
Since this is supposed to be an OO framework and apparently it isn't all
that difficult to integrate iTerm in a separate tab, why not have it?
I'd personnally much prefer staying in one window than switching.
> However as for a plugin architecture that sounds a little more
> promising something that takes advantage of Cocoa, ie. WebKit preview
> or something along that line.
So why put a webkit preview and not a terminal (which personnally I'd
use all the time)? I don't get it. Is it that much different?
David