On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:09:32 +0300 Eugene Arshinov <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ Geany mailing list [email protected] http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
