On May 21, 2011, at 5:43 PM, mike.w.me...@gmail.com wrote: > > I agree that having to cut & paste code to get a pretty printed version isn't > useable - which is why I didn't suggest that. I suggested a function that > would take a file name and pretty print the contents as code, which is as > useable as reloading code in an environment without REPL integration. If > JEdit doesn't have REPL integration, then this will integrate well with what > users have to do to run code. If JEdit does, then possibly that can be used > to create an in-editor code reindention, which would also integrate well with > what users are used to. > > This won't help much with getting pretty-printed code into your editor - but > that wasn't the goal. The goal was to show the user the LISP structure of the > code to help them figure out what's wrong with it, and this is a minimal tool > to achieve that goal. Given that code, a function to save a backup copy of a > file and overwrite it's contents with pretty-printed code should be easy, > would be useful for getting propelry printed code to share with others (not > one of the core goals, but one worth adding a little code for) and falls into > the range of useable for that goal. > > Pointing out a problem/missing feature is great - it's how tools become > better. Insisting that the solution has to be the one you are used to, > without considering the goals of the project in question, just help keep the > existing roadblocks in place.
If I understand correctly you're suggesting that a user working with an editor and a REPL, which aren't connected, run something in the REPL to see the structure of the code. Not un-useful, but of course the user will probably want the code in the editor to reflect that structure, which will require either manual matching of what they see in the REPL, or cut/paste, or the kind of overwrite functionality that you describe (which might then confuse JEdit, if you're overwriting a file out from under it). I don't think I'm insisting that the solution has to be the one that I'm used to, but none of these sound like great options while the decades-old in-editor-reindentation approach seems to be viable and time-tested. -Lee -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
