Re: Python module (Was: [textadept] Textadept 3.7 beta 2)

From: mitchell <c....at.caladbolg.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:23:12 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

Robert,

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Robert wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Robert <ro....at.web.de> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:22 PM, mitchell <c....at.caladbolg.net> wrote:
>> (...)
>>>>
>>>> The "working prototype" I mentioned is using Pysmell, there is also
>>>> rope (with ropeide, ropemacs, ropevim, etc.).
>>>> I have also some other stuff in various stages of releasability, like
>>>> pep8-checking, pylint etc.
>>>> I'll let you know when I got something working.
>>>
>>> I wonder if there's a way to do autocomplete without those external tools. I
>>> wouldn't want an included module to depend on anything foreign.
>>>
>>> mitchell
>>>
>> I agree, my first attempts with Pysmell were okay, but there is the
>> problem of built-in modules that need to be imported to inspect them.
>> Pysmell does static analysis.
>>
>> I have something for the api in pure standard library python now, tags next. :-)
>> For once generating an api file importing the modules is not a problem.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>
> Should there maybe be a third category for sub-modules?
>
> sense.completions = {
> ['mod1'] = {
> functions = { 'fun1', 'fun2', ...},
> fields = { 'f1', 'f2', ... }
> modules = { 'm1', 'm2', ... }
> },
> ...
> }

No. Use

   ['mod1'] = { functions = { ... }, fields = { 'm1', 'm2' } }
   ['mod1.m1'] = { functions = { ... }, fields = { ... } }
   ['mod1.m2'] = { functions = { ... }, fields = { ... } }

mitchell
Received on Tue 08 Mar 2011 - 14:23:12 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu 08 Mar 2012 - 12:01:59 EST