On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Michael Sheets wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:05 AM, Thomas Aylott - subtleGradient wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
The reason to keep them sorted separately is if there is some
reason why they should not choose one of those syntaxes. In this
particular case it doesn't matter what they choose since they
aren't losing out on any absolutely necessary functionality.
I didn't think I was doing anything controversial before either, so
I'm not sure how controversial my plans are. Perhaps I should run
them by the community before I implement anything new.
My only point was that if there isn't any reason anyone would
intentionally want one or the other then why provide a obvious
option as to confuse people? Need I really go find some nifty
acronym to point to that says keep worthless options to a minimum? ;)
KWOtaM ? :D
(pronounced "quote-um")
I do like your renaming idea.
So: "Embedded Javascript" ?
or maybe: "Internal Javascript"
no, that would sort it above the normal Javascript.
Maybe we use something esoteric like "source.js". that way it still
makes sense to bundle developers, but it won't confuse regular users.
Especially If there is more than a single syntax renamed that way, it
would be even more obvious that those are only for people who know
what they're doing.
source.js
source.css.selectors
source.css.rules
From a user standpoint those would most likely be completely ignored.
—Thomas Aylott – subtleGradient—
_______________________________________________
textmate-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate-dev
