Could Glaive syntax be changed to match vim's :set?

[dbarnett]

@glts asked:

I wonder why you chose to make the notation different from Vim's notation.

:set list             :Glaive plug list
:set nolist     vs    :Glaive plug !list
:set list!      vs    :Glaive plug ~list
:set invlist    vs    :Glaive plug ~list
:set list?      vs    TBD
:set list&      vs    N/A

Is there a technical reason for this? I think acceptance would be better if users could apply the same pattern as in standard :set.

It's kind of painful to change the syntax if it breaks compatibility, but I think it's a fair question and we should investigate the possibility.

[dbarnett]

This is mostly a question for @Soares who designed the syntax, but I think we just designed it from scratch and didn't have compatibility/adoption in mind at the time. To me, the Glaive syntax is a little easier on the eyes, but I can also see a lot of value in having symmetry with :set and not having a completely new syntax for people to learn.

Worth noting that making compatibility-breaking changes to the syntax is painful. We've had several iterations on the syntax already and it was tough trying to maintain compatibility and/or get people to update their vimrc's.

[Soares]

The original idea was to be hands off the plugin flag names, and allow syntax like "!", "?", etc. to be included in flag names. We ended up tightening the syntax allowed in flag names, though, so that's no longer a concern. I wouldn't mind supporting the :set syntax as well (and perhaps deprecating the old); we should be able to do it without backwards compatibility problems due to the restrictions on flag names.

? and & are things we should support one way or the other. Supporting "no_" and "inv_" has to be handled delicately. I'll happily review pull requests to implement this behavior in a backwards compatible manner.

[glts]

Good to hear, thank you both for listening.

[dbarnett]

Question: How would this look with foci? noplugin[commands], or plugin[nocommands], or something else? Maybe just an explicit plugin[commands]=0?

[chiphogg]

TBH, I don't really like any of those options as much as the current syntax.

[Soares]

We could also retain the prefix-bang (prefix bang means no, suffix bang means inv). Not sure it's a good idea, but it is an idea.