[Geany] The plugin - Re: Use snippets for HTML autocompletion?

[Nick Treleaven]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:09:32 +0300
Eugene Arshinov <earshinov at gmail.com> wrote:

> > About the API changes:
> > > +	&editor_get_snippets_for_file_type,
> > > +	&editor_insert_snippet
> > 
> > I'm not sure these are necessary, particularly
> > editor_get_snippets_for_file_type - I don't want to expose the
> > snippet data structures unnecessarily. Perhaps
> > editor_find_snippet(doc, snippet_name) instead?
> > 
> 
> The reason why I decided to export a hash table is that it allows a
> plugin to decide independently whether to account "default" snippets or
> just use the ones specified directly for the filetype (I must note
> that there is currently no separate function to get the default
> snippets, and relying on the fact that one can get it by passing
> "default" as filetype name is really bad).  If we provide a function
> like editor_find_snippet, we need to fix the behaviour in it or add a
> boolean argument.  Now I think, the latter is the best choice.  Your
> opinion?

Do plugins need to look up a default snippet?

Anyway perhaps editor_find_snippet(snippet_name, ft) is more flexible.
Perhaps passing NULL for ft could lookup a default snippet, if that's
necessary.

> > (I haven't really looked at editor_insert_snippet yet.)
> >
> 
> Basically there was some code common for snippet insertion and (recently
> introduced) snippet keybindings.  As I needed similar functionality in
> the plugin, I extracted it to a separate function and exported.

Ok.

> > I'm not sure about having snippet names enclosed in <> angle
> > brackets in snippets.conf, maybe.
> > 
> 
> I explained it a bit in the documentation (geany.txt): "It allows you to
> define snippets, which need not to be automatically inserted, without
> any name clashes".

Ok, but I'm not keen on distributing <tag> snippets with Geany, it just
seems ugly having some 'tag' snippets, some '<tag>'. I see the reason
though.

Nick