It's not done on purpose, a lot of this code (even the "Run Document" stuff) is fairly shitty first implementation stuff.
I'm slowly working my way back through this stuff and putting better code in place that works better. Adam K On 12 February 2010 17:36, Michael Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Adam Kennedy > <[email protected]> wrote: >> FWIW, I've already made some changes to the Cwd for the syntax checker >> in 0.56, turns out it wasn't that it wasn't changing the directory, >> it's that the Windows process spawning ignores the Cwd of the parent. >> >> That's now been resolved. >> >> Adam K > > I have an issue with the syntax checker and it is because in our > projects we use relative paths to our libraries in the code. eg > use lib '../modules'; . This has always caused an issue with other > editors as well, but I can work around it by setting the absolute > library path as an option to Perl for the syntax checking. In Padre > I can set that option but it only gets used by the run script Perl > instance option not the syntax checker instance. It looks like it > would be reasonable straight forward to make this setting apply to > both the run script and syntax checking Perl instances. > So is there any reason I should not do it ? Is it done that way on purpose? > > Michael Mueller . > > > >> On 6 February 2010 15:54, David Mertens <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hello again - >>> >>> I am new to padre-dev and signed up just in time to get the v 0.56 release >>> announcement and *cough* discussion. It looks kinda quiet around here aside >>> from those release emails. In my previous email I made two suggestions and >>> given the lack of enthusiasm I am wondering now if I should take them >>> somewhere else. Of course, given the focus on the recent release, it's >>> really not surprising that it's quiet, so perhaps I should just sit tight >>> for another week. >>> >>> The first idea - changing the current working directory for the syntax >>> checker - is low-hanging fruit for anybody who knows the code, so perhaps I >>> could post that idea somewhere more... fruitful. I was going to put it in >>> as a request on the tracker but I couldn't find a way to sign-up or sign-in. >>> >>> My second idea - interfacing with Inline - probably warrants a fair bit of >>> discussion among the developers. The more I think about it, the more I feel >>> that the best solution would be to add an option to Inline to make it >>> pretend it's working with a different file name. This is a general solution >>> that would minimize the code changes necessary on the Padre end of things. >>> What do you think? Should I send an email to the Inline maintainer(s)? >>> >>> David >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Padre-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Padre-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > Padre-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev > _______________________________________________ Padre-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev
