Re: Poll on language modules

From: Howie <zhehao.....at.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:00:28 -0800 (PST)

I personally like the code separation. I think it is much more elegant
than cramming everything into a single file. However, it is your code.
If it is easier for you to do it with one file, go ahead.

On Feb 28, 9:01 am, mitchell <c....at.caladbolg.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Robert wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 5:04 AM, mitchell <c....at.caladbolg.net> wrote:
> >> Hi,
>
> >> To be included in the next beta release are language modules for CSS, HTML,
> >> Ruby, and (possibly) Java with Adeptsenses. I didn't realize that creating
> >> each language module was such a chore with 4 separate files (init, commands,
> >> snippets, and adeptsense). I'd like to have all of that condensed into just
> >> an init.lua file in each directory. You can of course still 'require'
> >> additional .lua files as you see fit for your language modules.
>
> >> Thoughts?
>
> >> mitchell
>
> > The boilerplate for the snippets module is often as long as the
> > snippets module itself, so a single file default would definitely
> > simplify things.
> > Or was the poll question about the inclusion of more language modules
> > in the core distribution?
>
> The poll was for a single module init.lua file.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
Received on Tue 01 Mar 2011 - 19:00:28 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu 08 Mar 2012 - 12:00:30 EST