Le 18/03/2011 23:52, Lex Trotman a écrit :
Hi Colomban,
[..]
Do you (all) think it's OK to strip the last new line of the end of template files, since it's most likely to be an "implicit" new line?
Attached the possible patch, if you like to test it before.
I think its ok to strip only one newline, then people who actually do want extra blank lines in their templates can still have them, they just have to remember one gets stripped.
Yep, and the idea of stripping one being that most editors add it implicitly, at least on Unices.
Only comment on the patch is that you have swapped the order of frame_end and template_eol_char at the end of the template. (compare lines 21 and 67/68 of the patch)
It was indented actually (not as swapping though): * I added a line before the frame_end since the template no longer have a trailing new line. * I removed the newline after because it added implicitly an extra newline in e.g. template files (main.c, etc.) after the comment, but maybe we better keep it (e.g. inserting a template comment adds a new line); not sure.
Too bad C don't have D's /+ +/ comments ;(
But in the meantime (hopefully :D), I still think that it's important to keep nestable comments by default for ^E (maybe because I use ^E to temporarily comment stuff out and rarely to create "true" comments). And moreover, I think that if you prefer /* */ comments it's not *this* hard to change your filetypes.c accordingly (although it's a bit a power-user thing, I agree).
I'm not sure we should consider changing a config file too power-user, after all the assumption is that *all* users are programmers of some type.
True. Anyway, it'd be good to have both (single and multi-line comment).
The other thing I notice, since we're discussing it; shouldn't the Python "Function Description" insert a triple-quoted docstrings below the function def, not hash (#) comments above the def? I don't think the hash-style comments would be understood by Doxygen, Epydoc, or Sphynx, for example, but I might be wrong. I'm pretty sure it won't end up in the __doc__ attribute of the function though.
This may be fixed by supporting two comment types per filetype, one single-line (or at least nestable) to use with ^E, and one for multi-line comments. Though, it wouldn't probably be enough for Python since you still want to use sharp-comments in e.g. fileheader but triple-quote-strings as comments for doc...
Yes we need a separate template_comment_open and template_comment_close in filetypes.*.
This wouldn't solve the problem since in Python you don't want all template to use """ ... """
After some consideration I think that docstrings are not comments so they should not be inserted by "insert comments".
Maybe. Not sure the distinction is really needed though.
Cheers, Colomban