Related:
This is in a PR where Shougo, another long-time contributor, communicates entirely in walls of unparseable AI slop text: https://github.com/vim/vim/pull/19413
Thank you for the detailed feedback! I've addressed all the issues:
Thank you for the feedback! I agree that following the Vim 8+ naming convention makes sense.
Thank you for the feedback on naming!
Thanks for the suggestion! After thinking about this more, I believe repeat_set() / repeat_get() is the right choice:
Thank you for the feedback. A brief clarification.
https://hachyderm.io/@AndrewRadev/116176001750596207
@AndrewRadev@hachyderm.io
TBH I don't really mind when LLMs are used for code reviews. My main issue[^1] with coding assistants is that the people using them don't verify the code they emit thoroughly (that would be too much work. Remember - reading code is harder then writing it) and thus they often push junk into the codebase and blame the AI for the bad quality when it crashes. But with code reviews there is no such risk, because you still have to read and understand the comments and decide on your own how to resolve them.
[^1]: Quality issue - I'm not talking about the ethical issues here.
Some caveats;
[^2]: Regular Open Source etiquette applies, of course. The reviewer is always allowed to reject the PR and ask the submitted to kindly fuck off.