Skip to content

feat: support multiple config names in :LspStart #3896

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

toupeira
Copy link
Contributor

@toupeira toupeira commented Jun 9, 2025

Description

Problem:
The arguments for :LspStart and :LspStop are inconsistent, the latter supports multiple arguments while the former only takes one or zero arguments.

Solution:
Support multiple config names in :LspStart as well.

Context

Problem:
The arguments for `:LspStart` and `:LspStop` are inconsistent, the
latter supports multiple arguments while the former only takes one or
zero arguments.

Solution:
Support multiple config names in `:LspStart` as well.
@justinmk
Copy link
Member

justinmk commented Jun 10, 2025

I would prefer that neither of them supported multiple args. What is the use-case? These commands should not be used in scripts. Interactive usage is typically not going to specify multiple names.

Scripts should use vim.lsp, not these commands. Commands are for interactive use.

@toupeira
Copy link
Contributor Author

@justinmk that sounds good to me too, I just added this for consistency with the LspStop and LspRestart commands.

I personally don't have a use case, but I'm also not sure if we should change the behaviour of LspStop / LspRestart now since I guess that would technically be a breaking change. Maybe I should leave this alone, and then any new behaviour can be implemented in the upstreamed :Lsp multi-command?

(if you agree feel free to close this PR 😀)

@justinmk
Copy link
Member

but I'm also not sure if we should change the behaviour of LspStop / LspRestart now since I guess that would technically be a breaking change.

We should make that change. The goal is to get the code in shape and then upstream it to core Nvim.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants