On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:57:27 +0100, Rhodri James
<rho...@wildebst.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:37:15 +0100, Eric S. Johansson <e...@harvee.org>
wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Why do you think a smart editing environment is in opposition to coding
conventions? Surely an editor smart enough to know a variable name
spoken
as "pear tree" is an instance and therefore spelled as pear_tree (to
use
your own example) would be smart enough to know a variable name spoken
as
"red" is a constant and therefore spelled "RED"?
no. I think a smart editing environment should support a coding
convention. If
an editor is smart enough to track type and instance information, yes.
It should
be able to generate the right strings for symbols. The question is, how
do we
get such a smart editor. as far as I know, none exist and the smart
ones so far
seem to be oriented towards hand use and are almost inaccessible to
speech.
But is it really possible for an editor to be smart enough
Gah. Ignore me. I hit 'send' instead of 'cancel', after my musings
concluded that yes, an editor could be smart enough, but it would have
to embed a hell of a lot of semantic knowledge of Python and it still
wouldn't eliminate the need to speak the keyboard at times.
--
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest Herder to the Masses
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
