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

From: mitchell <c....at.caladbolg.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:36:28 -0400 (EDT)

Robert,

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Robert wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:05 AM, mitchell <c....at.caladbolg.net> wrote:
>> Robert,
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011, Robert wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Feedback, bug reports, ideas much appreciated.
>>> Mitchell, what do you think about the circumventing of the ctags format?
>>
>> I actually can't see where this is happenening. I see your
>> 'load_completions' function, but I don't see it being called...
>
> Sorry, I should have provided an example file. The call is in the
> tags/api files, which are generated by the python script. I like this
> approach of "data as function call" as it was described in the
> Programming in Lua book. It is of course possible to create a pseudo
> ctags file with the Python script but I found the mapping from Python
> dictionary to Lua table simpler.

I have mixed feelings about having something like this in the core
distribution. On the one hand it's a nice solution, but the file is rather
large and difficult to modify. Also, inheritence is not represented so
there's a lot of the RY in DRY, heh. I've found that the Ruby on Rails
code is so crazy that the default set of tags generated is not the whole
story so I'm having to add in inheritence manually. I can't imagine doing
something like this for Python. Now you could argue that Python is more
exact since it looks like you are asking the objects themselves what
functions and fields they have and I don't have an answer to that. That's
part of the reason why my feelings are mixed. I'm curious to see where
this is headed if you're still working on it though.

mitchell
Received on Thu 17 Mar 2011 - 20:36:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu 08 Mar 2012 - 12:02:09 EST