Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:54:03 -0400, "John Gabriele" jmg3000@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/07, Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:44:01 -0400, "John Gabriele" jmg3000@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/19/07, Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
So my suggestion is to rename the current construct completion completely to e.g. "code snippets" or something else.
My guess is that lots of folks will use them for things other than code, so maybe just "snippets" would do; as in, "Hit Tab to activate the snippet for the preceeding bit of text". Then you'd find yourself referring to "filetype-specific snippets" for those different sections in the config file.
But why not? IMO it fits the actual behaviour more than auto completion.
The actual behaviour is, of course, to expand a small piece of text into a larger piece -- regardless of whether or not it's code. So, really, neither "code snippets" nor "snippets" are names that fit actual behaviour. I just thought "snippets" would be simpler, and more general sounding.
Why doesn't fit snippets at all? I think it is good enough and I'm not really sure about your last sentence. You also suggest snippets or you are against? To me it sounds a bit contrary.
Regards, Enrico
Hi,
Snippets have a different meaning for me : those of a TextMate like editor (InType, eTexteditor,Smultron,...), with fields where you can give default values, apply transforms and pos your cursor at the end. Type 'snippets' + Vim or Emacs, and you'll find these features too. So this term seems commonly used for pieces of text with dynamic replacements; that's not Geany behavior.
Kib.