[slim-vim] Vim+ECL patch

[Brad Beveridge]

> In the long term ... I'm not sure what I'd prefer.  Part of me says
> "make all C Vim functions continue to take 1..n+1, and change all Lisp
> Vim functions to take 0..n, and make the Lisp functions translate to
> the C functions' expected coordinate scheme".  But the other part of
> me says "change all C Lisp interface functions to take 0..n, and have
> them translate to other Vim functions' expected coordinate scheme".
>
> The first option keeps all C functions (both normal Vim functions and
> Lisp-interface "internal" functions) using the same coordinate scheme,
> but makes all Lisp functions that talk to them have to do 1- and 1+
> all over the place (or call some "fix-it" function on their
> coordinates first, or something).  The second option makes the Lisp
> functions easier, but makes the C functions have to do the same
> translations, and makes them inconsistent with the rest of Vim.
>
> Thoughts, anyone?

I agree that we need to be consistant.  I think that I would prefer
the Lisp code to access lines on a 1..n basis.  To append a line, you
replace-line and n+1.  I _think_ that is consistant with internal Vim,
which is probably a good thing.  To be honest, I didn't think too hard
about this when I "fixed" it.  At the moment there is only a small
part of my code (the Gray stream to a buffer) that uses this.  I
changed the Gray stream implementation from calling a Vim script to
append to the buffer to using pure Lisp - it sped the stream up a lot.
 I was doing this to try to avoid the bug where the input listener
crashes after a while.  It didn't fix it :)

So unless somebody makes the Vim ECL buffer handling consistant today,
I will probably do that tonight.  Gotta do something other than bang
my head against this input listener bug.

Cheers
Brad