Re: [ jEdit-devel ] folding comments style

[Matthieu C. <cho...@gm...>]

Oh because of the buffer local properties in jEdit's file the force
explicit edit mode ?
I never think that some do not like them in fact.
But finally I understand that, in that case we could add an option
somewhere to ignore some buffer local properties.

Matthieu

2012/3/3 Dale Anson <da...@gr...>

> I often run this script in my startup folder:
>
> String[] names =
> org.gjt.sp.jedit.ServiceManager.getServiceNames("org.gjt.sp.jedit.buffer.FoldHandler");
> for (int i = 0; i < names.length; i++) {
>  org.gjt.sp.jedit.ServiceManager.unregisterService("org.gjt.sp.jedit.buffer.FoldHandler",
> names[i]);
> }
>
> This removes all the fold handlers, which makes working with jEdit core
> code much nicer. Again, just my preference.
>
> Dale
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Matthieu Casanova <cho...@gm...
> > wrote:
>
>> Yes I was only saying how it is in jEdit's core and how it is described
>> in the wiki page that you had in your previous mail. After that every
>> plugin developpers can follow or not those rules.
>>
>> Il fact a plugin could provide a great folding mode that would do exactly
>> the same job result :
>>
>> Fold a method with it's javadoc in only one fold. But to be perfect it
>> should also have a textarea painter that would paint the method name in the
>> beginning of the fold. Or the folding api could be changed to give a title
>> to foldings.
>>
>> Matthieu
>>
>> 2012/3/3 Jarek Czekalski <jar...@po...>
>>
>>>  W dniu 02/28/2012 07:05 PM, Dale Anson pisze:
>>>
>>> It's not wrong, it's a style preference. It's just my opinion, but I
>>> find that they clutter the code and don't really serve any purpose -- extra
>>> work for no benefit.
>>>
>>> They allow folding a method body together with a javadoc comment which
>>> comes before the code. I guess sidekick folding would leave whole javadoc
>>> unfolded. There are several other cases that also make explicit folding the
>>> only choice.
>>>
>>> (...) In fact, with sidekick, there really isn't much need for folding
>>> at all.
>>>
>>> Yes, no folding is the other option. But having explicit folds defined
>>> makes them usable for those who like folds. My personal opinion is that
>>> these additional marks give more benefits than drawbacks. But I'll remember
>>> not to fold your code, Dale :)
>>>
>>> Jarek
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
>>> Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing
>>> also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service.
>>> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/
>>> --
>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>> jEdit Developers' List
>>> jEd...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jedit-devel
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
> Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing
> also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service.
> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/
> --
> -----------------------------------------------
> jEdit Developers' List
> jEd...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jedit-devel
>
>