On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:40:08 +1000 Lex Trotman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > That would be custom *file* templates - those are for creating a new > >> > file, not inserting into an existing one. > >> > >> Ah I see. > > I thought I saw, I took this to mean you were advocating two sets of > templates, those that are used for new files & those that are inserted > into existing files?? Which of course implies some form of insert > into operation which I took to mean menu->edit->insert comment. > > But I see from templates.c that this is pretty hard coded They're not hard-coded, just the defaults. > What I thought it could do was offer the files in templates/includes > as extras to that menu like " menu->file->new with template" does for > templates/files and that was basically what you were suggesting, > except for the place to get the files from. > > >> > >> > > >> > Probably 'custom templates' could be read from templates/*. > >> > >> Now I understand, I would think that you would not want the menu > >> cluttered with the file templates since most of them you would not > >> want to paste into an existing file.maybe templates/inserts plus an > >> option to go looking elsewhere? > > > > What do you mean exactly? Aren't the File->New with Template menus > > enough, or do you want to insert a file template? > > No I read templates/* to include templates/files so they would be > included in the list, I was suggesting to exclude them. Probably > still better to have custom includes in a separate directory from the > standard ones though, easier to manage. Well for backwards compatibility I think all files (not dirs) under templates/* should be insertion templates and templates/files/* for new file templates. Regards, Nick _______________________________________________ Geany mailing list [email protected] http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
