On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:33:14 +0000% Nick Treleaven <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? Currently no. And when such a plugin appears, we can always extend the API. It seems to be another reason to keep it simple and use editor_find_snippet(doc, snippet_name). > > 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. > Yes, I think it's a good alternative to additional function argument. > > > (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. > Ah, again I missed something. If in the plugin I use 'tag', the plugin will automatically support 'table' snippet included in Geany since recently. I think it's more important than preventing name clashes, so it's probable worth changing to 'tag'. Best regards, Eugene. _______________________________________________ Geany mailing list [email protected] http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
