Utility scripts used in several applications would not be appropriate to be part of this big file. That would include scripts from the J libraries and addons as well as those built by the user. So a build is still needed; however, to me, minimizing the differences between the test and production environments is desirable.
2010/6/1 Sherlock, Ric <[email protected]> > > From: bill lam > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:43 > > > > Втр, 01 Июн 2010, Sherlock Ric писал(а): > > > example the start of a section could be indicated by: > > ile. big f> > > > NB.# Initialize > > > > > > If it is desirable to explicitly close sections (can't think why > > > though), maybe the following syntax would be better: > > > > > > NB.( Utils > > > > > > NB.) > > > > > > For now Sections could be supported by the IDE as a tab in the > > > Sidebar much like the current "defs" tab. Or perhaps the idea of > > > Sections could be integrated with "defs" so that defs are shown > > > within Sections. Eventually/Potentially (when/if the code folding > > > support for gtksourceview gets released), the syntax highlighter > > > could also support the sections with code folding. > > > > I don't know gtksourceview folding. However in vim it is possible to > > fold by markers, default markers are {{{ and }}}. Eg. it is possible > > to include comments to define a fold > ... > > By asking project manager not to remove comment lines and then these > > markers will be preserved inside the script built. Not sure if this > > is what you wanted. > > From your comments I'm not quite sure that I've explained the idea very > clearly. Yes the vim behaviour is similar to what I'm suggesting, but > obviously my suggestions are for the new gtkide beta. I'm actually > suggesting that making multiple small source files (that get built/catenated > together by a build process) wouldn't be necessary if it were easier to > navigate a large script by supporting sections/chapters in the ide. > > As Don suggests the name "build" would potentially become less appropriate, > but there would still be a role for a post-processing script (e.g. copying > to (multiple) publish locations, removing comments, locking scripts). Maybe > "Publish" or "Deploy" would become a more accurate name. > > However even if this suggestion were implemented, it would be desirable to > leave the current build mechanism until the suggestion was proven. There may > be other benefits to having small source files that I'm missing? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
