On 6/30/07, Chachereau Nicolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll take a serious look at that. As I wrote in an email that mysteriously disappeared, I'm not sure I like having potentially so many pipes open. That's what I was referring to when saying that I would tend to using local sockets. However, I don't know enough about them yet... and it's true that they're more complicated than named pipes.
That's what I think - named pipes are so easy, you don't need a higher degree or special equipment ;) Although controlling a remote instance of SciTE might be entertaining, it wouldn't be high on most people's list of piorities. But, it's true, pipes are global. I was thinking whether it's not better to put the pipes in some local user directory like ~/.scite or something. BTW, scitepm actually drives SciTE pretty smartly. It makes up its own unique pipes, and passes the ipc properties in the environment to its own SciTE instance. So there is no problem with multiple scitepm instances. The new interface extensions can coexist quite happily. steve d. _______________________________________________ Scite-interest mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.lyra.org/mailman/listinfo/scite-interest
