Are there any folding editors that work "automatically" with the normal
syntactic elements of a programming language (maybe automatically
folding function, subroutine, or struct definitions), or do they all
require the embedding of special codes in the program comments?
Randy Kramer
Mike Nordell wrote:
>
> Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> >At 9:59 AM -0500 2/6/01, Randy Kramer wrote:
> >>Mike -- have you ever used a folding editor? Was it useful? If not,
> >>was it because the concept was not useful or because it wasn't, for
> >>example, integrated with an IDE?
> >>
> > I'm not Mike, but I use a folder editor pretty frequently,
> > and it's VERY useful for editing source code since I can close up
> > blocks that I'm not currently interested in to see more logic w/o
> > scrolling.
>
> This is my view of it also.
>
> > In an outliner, folding of "heads" is appropriate for the
> > same reasons - you want to see more of the context w/o scrolling. But
> > I don't think we need folding in AbiWord for 1.0 - though if we do
> > want to provide outliner functionality (either as a sectional element
> > or as an alternative view) we WILL need it at some point.
>
> I'll borrow two terms from M$ Word(7.0); "Page Layout View" and "Normal
> View".
>
> What AW currently only supports is the "Page Layout View" which is IMO just
> a quick version of print preview. It's useful when making the printed pages
> look good, but when editing reasonable amounts of text I think it only
> hurts. It becomes harder to browse, the cursor has to jump over page breaks
> and so on.
>
> That said, I've found the ability to fold sections to be useful in "Normal
> View", but in "Page Layout View" i _think_ it could be wrong. This view is
> to give a quick preview of how the printed pages will look. If folds were
> allowed in this view it no longer displays a print preview.
>
> The short version: I'd first like to see the "Normal View" type implemented.
> For that view folds would make sense.
>
> /Mike
