begin quoting Andrew Lentvorski as of Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 04:01:04PM -0700: [chop] > I'm finding that I'm starting to rely on color more.
I've found that moderate use of color is quite useful. I've been finding that I get *annoyed* at some of the stuff that's colored (and how it's colored), but maybe that'll wear off as I get used to it. (I kind of doubt it, however.) > Indentation is there simply because we had no other good visual > identifier. I'm not advocating removing indentation, but I'm finding > that I seem to work faster with *color* instead. How many distinct colors are you using? > Probably because my eyes don't have to keep going to the left edge for a > cue. With color, the cue is right where I'm looking. > > I started this by colorizing my parentheses in Scheme. I like it. A > lot. It took me almost no time to find going back the other direction > to be painful. That's generally the sign of a good change. Good point. I'll have to pay attention for that.... > Now, I need to look at the elisp code and change that to adding the > color to the *background* rather than the *foreground*. The background > is a much bigger target--after a while I probably won't even see the > glyph, I'll just see the color. It's the background color changes that have been really annoying me. > Eventually, I'll probably try to extend the color to the entire > syntactic entity rather than just the begin-end marks. > > Unfortunately, I'll probably start to curse if I actually like it. > Doing syntactic analysis is painful in most languages, and full > colorization really requires that. Heh. We need some languages that lend themselves such such analysis. -- Has anyone around here ever actually done any literate programming? Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
