codemill-spec

[Codemill-spec] Re: proposed -L option

[John L. <ja...@al...>]

>> > 6) The generated code must be under 'no license'.
>>
>> I agree with what you mean by this statement, but it made me think of
>> something.  Most of the code I write is under LGPL and the GPL.  For
>> every new bloody file I create, I have to copy/paste the info about the
>> license into the top of the file.  I also put a little header with a
>> description of the file and some macros that CVS expands.  It would be
>> really helpfull if I could some how point to a file containing the
>> software license/header info and CodeMill could copy that into the
>> created file.  I can;t think of an intuitive way to work this into the
>> syntax...
>
> This is a very good idea, We could add a -L option to codemill that would
> add a license template at the top of the generated code,

Why not just make this part of the template file that has already been
added to the spec?  One would specify what should be in the header of the
source file, the header of the header file, same for the footers, and then
the format of the different code snippets that Code Mill creates.  One
would probably only need to have one variable, the date, since names, etc.
would be entered by hand (once) into each peronalized template files.

John

Re: [Codemill-spec] Re: proposed -L option

[Richard K. <rk...@sw...>]

Hi All,

John Lindal wrote:

> >> > 6) The generated code must be under 'no license'.
> >>
> >> I agree with what you mean by this statement, but it made me think of
> >> something.  Most of the code I write is under LGPL and the GPL.  For
> >> every new bloody file I create, I have to copy/paste the info about the
> >> license into the top of the file.  I also put a little header with a
> >> description of the file and some macros that CVS expands.  It would be
> >> really helpfull if I could some how point to a file containing the
> >> software license/header info and CodeMill could copy that into the
> >> created file.  I can;t think of an intuitive way to work this into the
> >> syntax...
> >
> > This is a very good idea, We could add a -L option to codemill that would
> > add a license template at the top of the generated code,
>
> Why not just make this part of the template file that has already been
> added to the spec?  One would specify what should be in the header of the
> source file, the header of the header file, same for the footers, and then
> the format of the different code snippets that Code Mill creates.  One
> would probably only need to have one variable, the date, since names, etc.
> would be entered by hand (once) into each peronalized template files.

Yes , but I think it is important to keep the license template and the code
template separate.
Since someone could have the GNU coding style with the BSD license etc...
( I guess this is what you meant )

Then people can add there own headers/footers in with codemill.
These can have CVS macros/ emacs settings etc. in.


if only one set variable is needed then it's not to bad,
I don't want have unique / different variables is each template


I would also like to propose a system of finding templates.
codemill would first search the current directory ( or a specified one )
Then codemill would go into it's own template directory like
/usr/local/codemill/templates/cplusplus/ etc...
Maybe if a verbose mode is set it will tell where it got it's templates etc...

Thanks,
Richard.

Re: [Codemill-spec] Re: proposed -L option

[David S. <xe...@ex...>]

Richard Kolb wrote:

> if only one set variable is needed then it's not to bad,
> I don't want have unique / different variables is each template

I think there may have been some misunderstanding on where the values for the
variables are coming from.  When I was using variables in my example "initial
file" they would all be expanded by CodeMill and not passed through arguments.
There were also only four variables: YEAR, INCLUDES, FILE_BASE and START.  All of
these variables would be expanded through direct find/replace operation (it could
be done with ed).  I don't understand how that causes unique/different variables
in each "initial file" (you call it a template).

        -- David Snopek

(P.S.  I may have been replying directly to the author of particular messages
instead of to the whole mailing list.  If you have no idea to what I am reffering
to in the above letter, please let me know and I will send my last letter to the
list)

[Codemill-spec] variables

[Richard K. <rk...@sw...>]

David Snopek wrote:

> Richard Kolb wrote:
>
> > if only one set variable is needed then it's not to bad,
> > I don't want have unique / different variables is each template
>
> I think there may have been some misunderstanding on where the values for the
> variables are coming from.  When I was using variables in my example "initial
> file" they would all be expanded by CodeMill and not passed through arguments.
> There were also only four variables: YEAR, INCLUDES, FILE_BASE and START.  All of
> these variables would be expanded through direct find/replace operation (it could
> be done with ed).  I don't understand how that causes unique/different variables
> in each "initial file" (you call it a template).

Ok , I understand now, ( Your probably saying at last :-) )
if codemill expands these , then that will be very easy to implement,


>
> (P.S.  I may have been replying directly to the author of particular messages
> instead of to the whole mailing list.  If you have no idea to what I am reffering
> to in the above letter, please let me know and I will send my last letter to the
> list)
>

I don't know why this mailing list does this,
maybe it's a setting in mail man.

Thanks,
Richard.