vim.snippet: merge jumpable() with active() about neovim HOT 6 CLOSED

vim.snippet.jumpable() is a strange name and overlaps with active().

These are very different things. I feel we are rehashing discussions we've already had on the original PR.

from neovim.

Is it likely that we will want vim.snippet.get() in the future?

from neovim.

vim.snippet.jumpable() is a strange name and overlaps with active().

These are very different things.

How is anyone supposed to figure that out based on the documentation? The documentation doesn't imply any difference, it simply uses the word "active" for both cases.

vim.snippet.active()                                    *vim.snippet.active()*
    Returns `true` if there's an active snippet in the current buffer.

vim.snippet.jumpable({direction})                     *vim.snippet.jumpable()*
    Returns `true` if there is an active snippet which can be jumped in the
    given direction. 

I feel we are rehashing discussions we've already had on the original PR.

Yes, I thought so too. But the docs need to be improved then.

from neovim.

@justinmk We can indeed merge jumpable into active. However I feel like it might not help with the ease of use around the API because of some cases like: If the cursor is modifying the one and only tabstop in a snippet, then jumpable(1) and jumpable(-1) are both false but active() should return true. So here the union of jumpable(d) for each d in direction is not equal to active(), which feels a bit odd imo.

from neovim.

If the cursor is modifying the one and only tabstop in a snippet, then jumpable(1) and jumpable(-1) are both false but active() should return true.

in that case the results would be:

active()   -- true
active(-1) -- false
active(1)  -- false

right? seems clear to me. active() gives a different result when its search space is filtered. That works like any other filter.

from neovim.

right? seems clear to me. active() gives a different result when its search space is filtered. That works like any other filter.

Right, but there's no filter combination that matches the unfiltered result, which I find a bit odd. I might be overthinking it though, I'm truly indifferent about removing vim.jumpable or not.

from neovim.