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

From: Robert <ro....at.web.de>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 10:55:02 +0100

Mitchell,

I am working on this and already find it very useful (for example
auto-completing acronymic module constants), but there is obviously
more work to do.
There are also to be resolved issues on Windows.
If somebody came up with a few lines sub-classing pydoc (or something
else) I wouldn't mind the reduced complexity, but the fact that there
are several libraries doing something like this seems to indicate that
there is no really simple way.

Robert

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:36 AM, mitchell <c....at.caladbolg.net> wrote:
> 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
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "textadept" group.
> To post to this group, send email to textadept.at.googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> textadept+unsubscribe.at.googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/textadept?hl=en.
>
>
Received on Sat 19 Mar 2011 - 05:55:02 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu 08 Mar 2012 - 12:02:11 EST