On Mar 31, 8:44 am, "Edward K. Ream" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll pause now, and turn my attention to setup.py. Well, it's just too much fun to stop now :-) Single-stepping through code gives a completely different, complementary picture to the view presented by the sources, even when the sources are presented as a Leo outline. This is a theme I've been seeing over and over again over the past several days. Sources (or docs) are *not* the final authority about what is happening. After an initial get-acquainted period with the sources, it seems like stepping through code is *significantly* more useful than studying the sources. And there is much more energy. It's much like the old text "Adventure" game, except it Python makes noodling around with pdb a pure pleasure. Given an object, it is straightforward to determine its type: obj.__class__.__name__, it's methods: dir(obj), etc. I've determined that buf is actually a PythonBuffer, a subclass of CitadelBuffer. Thus, buf should have all the smarts needed to do codeintel (completion and calltips). Of course, reading the sources is an integral part of the single-stepping process: the point is that the debugger adds a lot. At present, I'm attempting to get codeintel to scan komodo-test.py. Actually, buf.scan() does this, but somehow the database isn't updated. I'm happily watching the "python_cile" code do a full parse. It returns an ast (abstract syntax tree), so we are close. Presumably either the manager (mgr) or the database (mgr.db) actually have to call buf.scan. Or something like that... Edward --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
