[Geany] autocomplete terminology confusion

[Enrico Tröger]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:54:03 -0400, "John Gabriele" <jmg3000 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 10/20/07, Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger at uvena.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:44:01 -0400, "John Gabriele"
> > <jmg3000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 10/19/07, Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger at 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

-- 
Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.key
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.geany.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20071022/7608b24d/attachment.pgp>