# Simplifying Vim folding **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [May 10, 2006, 1:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113 "2006-05-10T13:08:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 1:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113/1 "2006-05-10T13:08:12Z")
G’day folks, I was planning on simplifying the default folding provided when foldmethod=syntax. Currently pretty much everything is folded but I was planning on reducing this to just module/class/method definitions, multi-line comments and **END** data chunks, with an option to disable comment folding. We could, of course, make this ‘infinitely’ configurable but I see little point. Is anyone particularly enamoured with having their multi-line regexes folded? 😉 Any thoughts appreciated… Thanks, Doug ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 1:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113/2 "2006-05-10T13:30:02Z")
On 5/10/06, Doug K. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > We could, of course, make this ‘infinitely’ configurable but I see > little point. Is anyone particularly enamoured with having their > multi-line regexes folded? 😉 Enamoured? No. But there are things that I really like being folded – multi-line hash definitions (I wish it extended to multiline array definitions). All in all, I’m mostly happy with the state of folding in the folding. This probably makes me unusual, but I’d much rather keep my cases and if statements foldable. If it’s changed in the “official” distribution, I will need to pretty much stop upgrading because method folding is too coarse for me. -austin ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 2:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113/3 "2006-05-10T14:00:25Z")
> > folding. > > This probably makes me unusual, but I’d much rather keep my cases and > if statements foldable. If it’s changed in the “official” > distribution, I will need to pretty much stop upgrading because method > folding is too coarse for me. > Me too, I like the way folding works right now, folding pretty much > everything. That way I only unfold the part of code that I’m currently > interested in. Though sometimes I do make use of zR to get the bigger > picture… 🙂 I guess, if you make it configurable, it would be ok, so that we can switch ON the ‘full folding’ mode if we wanted to… All the best, Alex ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 3:51pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113/4 "2006-05-10T15:51:14Z")
I agree with you Doug, folding module, class & method make it easy to see the structure of your code still. Anyway, it would be nice if there could just be a switch so everyone can have their flavor. In the meantime, check out Mauricio F. blog. He’s got a couple really helpful bits for vim & ruby. This is the folding you want: [http://eigenclass.org/hiki.rb?Usable+Ruby+folding+for+Vim](http://eigenclass.org/hiki.rb?Usable+Ruby+folding+for+Vim) -Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 3:11pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113/5 "2006-05-10T15:11:08Z")
On Wed, 10 May 2006 20:07:38 +0900, you wrote: > Currently pretty much everything is folded but I was planning on > reducing this to just module/class/method definitions, multi-line > Any thoughts appreciated… occasionaly i get frustrated with folding by syntax that most of the ide’s do, so i use cream for vim which defaults to manual folding. with easy access keys you can create folds or whatever lines you want. in my regular vim installation i have folding defaulted to marker but i find that tends to clutter up otherwise cluttered code 🙂 [http://home.cogeco.ca/~tsummerfelt1](http://home.cogeco.ca/~tsummerfelt1) telnet://ventedspleen.dyndns.org ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 5:21pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113/6 "2006-05-10T17:21:34Z")
On 5/10/06, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > i simply bit the bullet and always use marker - it’s very convenient if one > works with many many files since the folds endure when you close the file. > i’d also add folding of here-docs since, by definition, those are huge > multi-line blocks of string content that should nearly always be folded. The standard folding for Ruby works with here-docs. -austin ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 4:06pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113/7 "2006-05-10T16:06:42Z")
On Wed, 10 May 2006, tony summerfelt wrote: > with easy access keys you can create folds or whatever lines you want. > > in my regular vim installation i have folding defaulted to marker but > i find that tends to clutter up otherwise cluttered code 🙂 i simply bit the bullet and always use marker - it’s very convenient if one works with many many files since the folds endure when you close the file. i’d also add folding of here-docs since, by definition, those are huge multi-line blocks of string content that should nearly always be folded. s = #–{{{ \<\<-s this should be folded s #–}}} regards. -a ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113/8 "2006-05-11T18:36:07Z")
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 08:07:38PM +0900, Doug K. wrote: > We could, of course, make this ‘infinitely’ configurable but I see > little point. Is anyone particularly enamoured with having their > multi-line regexes folded? 😉 I’ve written a plugin that achieves something similar; it’s a much improved version of the vimscript I’d had in my .vimrc for a long time. It is available at [eigenclass.org](http://eigenclass.org/hiki.rb?simplefold+plugin+0.4.0) There are also a few animations comparing it to fdm=syntax and fdm=marker. Some features: - folds on module/class/method/{constant,attribute} definitions (“top-level folds”) These folds are _not_ nested, so methods inside a class are always visible, even when all folds are closed. This way zM gets you a high-level view of all of the file without having to open some module/class folds. - I’ve added folding on if/while/until/blocks/etc (“nestable folds”) (can be turned of, but it’s not a problem since we have zO) - top-level folds are enlarged to include preceding comments (good for RDoc’ed code) - the use of a specialized foldtext achieves over 60% savings in vertical space over fdm=marker at the class level. - it is possible to specify additional “top-level” folds with #{{{ / #}}} and additional “nestable” folds with {{{{ / }}}}. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113/9 "2006-05-11T19:09:54Z")
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Mauricio F. wrote: > - it is possible to specify additional “top-level” folds with #{{{ / #}}} and > additional “nestable” folds with {{{{ / }}}}. you need to use #–{{{ / #–}}} #–{{{{ / #–}}}} or else the #{{{ totally horks rdoc. fyi. -a ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:28pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113/10 "2006-05-11T19:28:35Z")
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 02:08:09AM +0900, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote: > or else the #{{{ totally horks rdoc. fyi. I’m matching against /{{{{/ and /^\s\*[#%"0-9]{0,4}\s\*{{{[^{]/, so #–{{{{ would work fine. === === ^ don’t remember why Would # {{{ (with extra spaces) also break rdoc? And ##{{{? While we’re at it, #%{{{ should be safe. #–{{{ is out because… well, I didn’t want it to conflict with your markers 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113/11 "2006-05-11T19:41:00Z")
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Mauricio F. wrote: > > #–{{{{ / #–}}}} > > # {{{ > > (with extra spaces) also break rdoc? And ##{{{? While we’re at it, #%{{{ > should be safe. > > ## #–{{{ is out because… well, I didn’t want it to conflict with your markers 🙂 > > Mauricio F. - [http://eigenclass.org](http://eigenclass.org) - singular Ruby boy. reading this post in vim is tough! there are a lot of folds! 😉 dunno about the spaces - i think i arrived at #-- because that’s some sort of flag for rdoc to ignore comments, so any such char should work. cheers. -a ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113/12 "2006-05-10T18:02:08Z")
On Thu, 11 May 2006, Austin Z. wrote: > On 5/10/06, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > i simply bit the bullet and always use marker - it’s very convenient if one > > works with many many files since the folds endure when you close the file. > > i’d also add folding of here-docs since, by definition, those are huge > > multi-line blocks of string content that should nearly always be folded. > > The standard folding for Ruby works with here-docs. oh i know - just saying that here-docs should be included in a ‘minimal’ folding config too imho. cheers. -a ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 3:11am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113/13 "2006-05-12T03:11:18Z")
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 02:37:31AM +0900, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote: > of flag for rdoc to ignore comments, so any such char should work. > Alright, I thought you meant that {{{ drove rdoc mad, when it’s just > that > they look bad in the docs 🙂 (at least that’s what it looks like after a > quick test). rdoc/parsers/parse\_rb.rb: … def remove\_private\_comments(comment) comment.gsub!(/^#–._?^#++/m, ‘’) comment.sub!(/^#–._/m, ‘’) end … So it seems things aren’t that bad: - nestable folds will do fine, since we can use e.g. #-- {{{{, also avoiding conflicts with your markers - no problem either with “top-level” folds: anyway, there’s no point in adding one just before a rdoc’able element (class, method…), since a fold would be created there automatically anyway. Thanks for pointing this out, I’ll add a few words about rdoc in the docs. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 10:50am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113/14 "2006-05-13T10:50:27Z")
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 01:35:03AM +0900, Mauricio F. wrote: > I’ve written a plugin that achieves something similar; it’s a much improved > version of the vimscript I’d had in my .vimrc for a long time. > > It is available at [eigenclass.org](http://eigenclass.org/hiki.rb?simplefold+plugin+0.4.0) > There are also a few animations comparing it to fdm=syntax and fdm=marker. This looks interesting; I’ll add a note to the vim-ruby docs. Regards, Doug ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 10:47am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/simplifying-vim-folding/60113/15 "2006-05-13T10:47:23Z")
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 08:27:32PM +0900, Austin Z. wrote: > Enamoured? No. But there are things that I really like being folded – > multi-line hash definitions (I wish it extended to multiline array > definitions). I’ll include something in the next release but in the meantime you can just add syn region rubyArrayLiteral start="%(^|\s)[" end="]" contains=ALLBUT,@rubyExtendedStringSpecial,rubyTodo fold to ~/.vim/after/syntax/ruby.vim. It should work for the common cases… > All in all, I’m mostly happy with the state of folding in the folding. Good. I was under the impression that almost everyone found the folding excessive. > This probably makes me unusual, but I’d much rather keep my cases and > if statements foldable. If it’s changed in the “official” > distribution, I will need to pretty much stop upgrading because method > folding is too coarse for me. I’ll make any changes configurable. Thanks, Doug