Re: [cedet-semantic] bug fixes and inline completion 'improvements'
Brought to you by:
zappo
From: David E. <de...@ra...> - 2011-08-17 16:26:37
|
Pete Beardmore writes: > on the last point though, i think i do remember deliberately adding a > few superfluous progn forms to try and make the larger else blocks > more readable ..a more 'prominent' marker in the sea of parenthesis > helps when you have a mismatch (well i know what i mean here even if > nobody else is following ;D). clearly frowned upon though. I agree the different branches of `if' statements can sometimes be hard to spot. This is why if there actually is no 'else'-branch, you should always use `when' or `unless' instead of `if', so at least that becomes immediately clear (that's just my opinion and by no means an "official" rule). > anyway, fingers crossed the changes don't break the ideals of 'how it > should work' for anybody but if it does turn out to be the case, i'll > have another look at it. i do want to improve it further (time- > permitting) ..for example, in playing with it just now it's clear that > there should at least be the option to let 'backspace' cancel the > current 'completion session', as now, backspacing many times is painful > having effectively removed the previous (incomplete) caching actions. > it's fast going forwards but slow going backwards. Yes, I noticed that. I usually use backward-kill-word if I'm completely off, so it didn't bother me at least. -David |