On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 07:52:35 -0600, David Steffen wrote:
> >When I want to test
>>a bit of syntax or knock out a small script, I usually use the
>>MacPerl editor. When I am going to spend more than a few minutes on
>>a script, I use BBEdit and then very much appreciate the integration.
>>Why do I need both? In my experience, such "convenience" issues are
>>not very susceptible to logical analysis but need to be decided on
> >experience. The above is my experience.
At 6:38 pm +0100 04/02/01, Bart Lateur wrote:
>If, however, the built-in editor got just that little bit better, people
>might find that they hardly ever need an external editor, at all. That's
>what I think.
I must say, despite my last post, I do exactly as David; so to that
extent half of me agrees with him and also with Bart.
The rub lies in the "little bit better". Number one on the wish list
must be to get rid of the 32k size limit. These days even a smallish
module plus its 'pod' runs over the top. Number two on the wish list
would be tab support and maybe the ability to tab blocks left and
right. Unfortunately both limitations originate in the MacOS toolbox
TextEdit engine. Implementing either is therefore non-trivial to say
the least. Where is the development time to come from if not at the
expense of more important maintenance issues; that is the question.
There are little bugs in the existing editor, like for instance if
the cursor runs off to the right the window contents shift up instead
of to the left; 'x' and 'y' co-ordinates have got muddled. It would
be easy to fix and maybe by now has been fixed. It isn't disastrous;
only a little disconcerting. But little fixes of that kind wouldn't
attack the real problems in my humble opinion.
This matter has been rumbling on for years, and I guess the grumbles
will go on and on until it is settled one way or another.
I wish I had the ability to grab the WASTE libs and after a few
grunts write "Hi MacPerlers -- here's a brand new editor". I couldn't
do it on my own in a thousand years, but I would be happy (and
interested) to have a look at the problem with others (Brian
MacNett?) if conjointly we might be able to come up with something.
Anyone sympathetic to this notion? (They say that a camel is actually
a horse designed by a committee. In the circumstances a committee
might be just the ticket.)
AF
