I agree that general utilities from the J libraries & addons should be referenced where possible rather than copied from application to application. The section heading "Utils" I used in the example was meant for application-specific utility functions. Is that the point you were making?
> From: Don Guinn > Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 23:34 > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
