[Forgot to cc: the rest of the list.] On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 14:37, Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin <c...@users.sf.net>wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 23:09, Bruce Sherwood <bashe...@ncsu.edu> wrote: > >> Agreed. As I indicated earlier, I don't care what happens from a >> command line, since unskilled users of Python and IDLE are very >> unlikely to start from a command line, and power users should have >> full flexibility. >> >> Bruce Sherwood >> >> Note that this also affects the behaviour of dragging files to the > IDLE icon, and possibly right click → Edit with IDLE. > Tal's proposal would change that from open-files-and-shell to > open-files only. > +1 (less distracting IMHO and a shell is always a menu/F5 away) > > <wrong> > BTW, "Edit with IDLE" on windows opens IDLE in lame no-subshell mode. > I believe that is a vestige of IDLE using a single port. Can we please > drop it? > Currently I'm forced to tell students to avoid "Edit with IDLE" and always > do File→Open. > </wrong> Turns out this was already fixed in 2.7 and 3.1 (issue5847). Better yet, would it be easy to arrange something like emacsclient: > if an IDLE is already running, ask it to open the files instead of > opening a new IDLE instance. > Sounds to me a lot of work to implement & debug. > Clever ideas anybody? > > Generally running more than one IDLE is a recipe for confusion. > - A tabbed interface would make this situation much clearer! > - Would adding numbers to the title - e.g. "IDLE (3)" - help? > These can be inferred from the port we manage to grab; > but we'll have to grab a port early even when not opening a shell. > -- Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin <c...@users.sf.net>
_______________________________________________ IDLE-dev mailing list IDLE-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/idle-dev
