On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:20:13 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >stable. Unless someone is already on the job of fixing the
>> >bugs in fix 4, I would stay with fix 3.
>> Sources is nearest to fix 4. And i don't want move sources back to fix 3. It's somt
>as
>> error correction in fix 4.
>Yes, I know sources are nearer fix 4. If you think we can fix the bugs
>in fix 4, than it's OK. Personally, I've experienced too much problems
>with fixpack 4, and have backed-out to fixpack 3.
I don't test fix 4, but we don't have a choice. We have some sources of SPCC. We can
a) delete all new code in SPCC & RTL and rewrite some VPDE code
b) Fix a problems & bugs.
I think, b) is more good choice.
>> > And what do you mean by "no debugging"? Sibyl
>> >IDE DOES allow integrated debugging.
>> But doesn't work :- ( (fix 3 & 4)
>It DOES work with recent fixpacks. I don't know about fix 4, but fix 3
>is definitely working (I used it just a few minutes ago).
Ok. eCS 1.0 no fix + Sibyl fix 3. DOESN'T work :-(.
>> > And I don't think an
>> >E-MLE is anyway better than Sybil's IDE text editor.
>> Better, because configurable & extensible.For example, i don't like WordStart style
text
>> editor and want CUA keys. And??? Nothing. I can't redefine keys, can't change
>> selection type. Another example: I want rexx hilighting (for rexx-macros), of
>couse,
>> pascal based editor doesn't allow make this and i will be use another editor.
>
>AFAIK, Sibyl's IDE perfectly supports CUA keys.
This is example only.
>I never used
>Wordstar-style keys (never got used to those). I don't know if one can
>redefine keys, cause I feel good with the current keys.
But I don't want learn new keys. For example, I like FC/2 (DN/2 editor / CONNECT/2
editor / etc /etc). If I want use another keys - I MUST have this feature.
>Sure, the IDE doesn't offer any facility to change keysets, but I don't
>know if the sources offer a good separation for the key definitions, in
>which case adding support for new keysets would be easy.
>
>> Oopps... May be you don't know about E-MLE? E-MLE is E-Multi Line Editing control.
>> EPM based on them.
>
>I DO know about E-MLE. E-MLE, as a control, might be more powerful (or,
>at least, configurable), but it suffers from several limitations and
>performance problems (e.g. when dealing with text greater than 64Kb).
>
>Also, to integrate an E-MLE into the Sibyl IDE you should rewrite almost
>everything, and I wouldn't waste manpower for this.
???
> Consider also that
>Sibyl's IDE supports dockable toolbars, the tabbed multi-window
>interface, and other goodies that wouldn't be easy to implement with an
>E-MLE
???
> (E-MLE is a monolithic control: it includes the whole user
>interface, including menu, status bar, etc).
:-) You talking about EFrame.
E-MLE onle MLE control with E support.
>I didn't look at Sibyl's IDE sources, but syntax highlighting may be
>well separated from the rest, so it could be easier to add configurable
>syntax highlighting (provided it's useful) than rewriting the whole
>thing with an E-MLE.
Only one thing. TEditor (Or another name).
>This is obviously only my humble opinion.
Of couse. My too.
But we talking about some features, but doesn't have any worked IDE. :-)
-----------
To unsubscribe yourself from this list, send the following message
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe sibyl
end
