Gregg, I am no professional scriptor, usually just using any text editor = on hand. Line editors leave me a bit cold - rethinking things and doing a= ground up editor in REBOL, for REBOL, seems a good approach - of course = if the design is very good it will be good for a lot of different text ta= sks.
So with some trepidation I would make a few suggestions. I have a typographical background, therefore line editors are to my eyes = primitive, the colouring of syntax tokens, helpful to a degree, but hardl= y exploiting the full and subtle range needed to see clearly the relation= ships between code fragments.=20 The block syntax of REBOL seems to especially recommend itself to typogra= phical layout. To collapsing and expanding fragments, to employing hierar= chical numbering instead of simple line numbers. Plus for novices it woul= d make longer scripts all the more readable and that is important. I would suggest a break with line editing altogether, and the idea of blo= ck manipulation as the basis for quickly composing scripts, making commen= ts sensible, readable and typographically distinct, along with other feat= ures of the language. Greg Schofield Perth Australia --- Message Received --- From: Gregg Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Carl Read <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 14:01:08 -0700 Subject: [REBOL] [editor] REBOL editor (was: Updated Syntax Highlighting = for UltraEdit) I've always thought that we were 90% of the way there, since emacs was built on a Lisp engine that they had to write first. Cal Dixon wrote a console mode emacs engine, and James Marsden did some really cool stuff with View. I think it's doable, and I want a full REBOL environment but, to me, that means rethinking things, not just doing what other editors and IDEs do. -- Gregg --=20 To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to=20 lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject. -- To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
