William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

> On Oct 5, 2008, at 5:07 AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> 
>> This form was developed before everybody had editors with
>> code folding capabilities. (You do have one, do you? :)
> 
> Um.  No, I don't think so.  Are they that common?  

Yes. A programming editor should have it. If nothing better, you can get
Visual Studio Express... :)

>> So when you look at a file of such code in your folding editor, with
>> most of the functions folded, and you unfold a function, what do you
>> see? The code of the function, as you should. But in order to see the
>> function description, you need to unfold the preceding function
> 
> Clearly your code folding editor is broken.  What parser in its right  
> mind would think that someone would put a large block comment at the  
> END of a function?  

I think you misunderstood me. Consider the following; the '+' mark at the
left border indicates the folding start, the '-' mark the folding end:

+  void foo()
   {
      // ...
   }

-  // Typical header comment.
+  void baz()
   {
      // ...
-  }

Now with my scheme:

+  void foo()
   {
      // ...
   }

-  
+  void baz()
   // My header comment.
   {
      // ...
-  }


> Isn't your editor infinitely configurable, extensible, and rewritable, so
> you can fix it?

Hm... I could change it (I wouldn't call it "fix it"), but why would I?
What would I gain? I find my form better. That it works also better with
the folding algorithms I know is just a useful side effect.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist