Re: autocomplete function name

[Quinn Taylor]

I had never heard of ctags, and it looks interesting, although the lack of 
Objective-C support is concerning... 
http://ctags.sourceforge.net/languages.html  I agree that most SVN users are 
probably dealing with source code. If the feature is sufficiently low-hanging 
fruit and wouldn't bloat the code, I wouldn't mind having it, but certainly not 
at the expense of some core features.

Glad I didn't put anyone off. At least, not anyone who has replied... :-)

 - Quinn

On Feb 9, 2011, at 4:18 PM, dave wrote:

> thanks for the input. ctags and etags look straightforward to
> implement for this functionality. see sourceforge: 
> http://ctags.sourceforge.net/ctags.html
> 
> i agree, merging would take priority. but i do guess that a large
> majority of svn users are coding, at least primarily. i also use svn
> for text files, but 'text file name' auto-complete would be useful
> too. incidentally, thanks for telling me about code symbols; i don't
> do much oop--mainly scientific programming in matlab--so this was
> useful!
> 
> also, re your (Quinn) disclaimer, i say pith is kind not curt. i
> prefer it; thanks!
> 
> 
> On Feb 9, 9:49 am, Lorin Rivers  wrote:
>> I wonder if adding support for ctags would be achievable?
>> 
>> Also, you didn't seem off-putting to me.
>> 
>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Quinn Taylor wrote:
>> 
>>> Disclaimer: Sometimes my tone seems confrontational, but I'm really being 
>>> nice. I just tend to looks at things objectively and pragmatically. Please 
>>> don't let me scare you off.  :-)
>> 
>>> I meant "code symbols" to encapsulate function names; for example, it could 
>>> also include methods, classes, variables, etc.
>> 
>>> File names would be easy to support, but remember that a Subversion 
>>> repository doesn't necessarily just store source code. Even assuming code, 
>>> there is a wide variety of programming languages that would have to be 
>>> supported for such a feature to be considered useful. On top of that, 
>>> there's an implicit assumption that most people even *put* 
>>> script/function/class names in their log messages.
>> 
>>> I just a Versions user too, but I'm also a software engineer myself, and my 
>>> gut reaction is that this feature — while admittedly cool and potentially 
>>> useful — is one that I would expect to require a lot more time and money 
>>> than could be justified, especially when compared to other core Subversion 
>>> features like merging.
>> 
>>> Personally, when I *do* put code symbols (like class and method names) in a 
>>> log message, I either type them out by hand or copy/paste from the source 
>>> or a diff. I tend to triple-check changes before committing, so the latter 
>>> is usually the easiest.
>> 
>>> As far as spelling mistakes, that's because Versions uses the built-in 
>>> spelling functionality and dictionary, which doesn't (and shouldn't) 
>>> contain script/function names. I'd bet that most users are more likely to 
>>> misspell common words than code symbols anyhow. I've caught a lot of minor 
>>> typos this way.
>> 
>>> If I've missed something, please let me know. Thanks!
>> 
>>> - Quinn
>> 
>> --
>> Lorin Rivers
>> Mosasaur: Killer Technical Marketing 
>> 
>> 512/203.3198 (m)
>> 
>>  smime.p7s
>> 6KViewDownload
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Versions" group.
> To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: autocomplete function name

[dave]

thanks for the input. ctags and etags look straightforward to
implement for this functionality. see sourceforge: 
http://ctags.sourceforge.net/ctags.html

i agree, merging would take priority. but i do guess that a large
majority of svn users are coding, at least primarily. i also use svn
for text files, but 'text file name' auto-complete would be useful
too. incidentally, thanks for telling me about code symbols; i don't
do much oop--mainly scientific programming in matlab--so this was
useful!

also, re your (Quinn) disclaimer, i say pith is kind not curt. i
prefer it; thanks!


On Feb 9, 9:49 am, Lorin Rivers  wrote:
> I wonder if adding support for ctags would be achievable?
>
> Also, you didn't seem off-putting to me.
>
> On Feb 9, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Quinn Taylor wrote:
>
> > Disclaimer: Sometimes my tone seems confrontational, but I'm really being 
> > nice. I just tend to looks at things objectively and pragmatically. Please 
> > don't let me scare you off.  :-)
>
> > I meant "code symbols" to encapsulate function names; for example, it could 
> > also include methods, classes, variables, etc.
>
> > File names would be easy to support, but remember that a Subversion 
> > repository doesn't necessarily just store source code. Even assuming code, 
> > there is a wide variety of programming languages that would have to be 
> > supported for such a feature to be considered useful. On top of that, 
> > there's an implicit assumption that most people even *put* 
> > script/function/class names in their log messages.
>
> > I just a Versions user too, but I'm also a software engineer myself, and my 
> > gut reaction is that this feature — while admittedly cool and potentially 
> > useful — is one that I would expect to require a lot more time and money 
> > than could be justified, especially when compared to other core Subversion 
> > features like merging.
>
> > Personally, when I *do* put code symbols (like class and method names) in a 
> > log message, I either type them out by hand or copy/paste from the source 
> > or a diff. I tend to triple-check changes before committing, so the latter 
> > is usually the easiest.
>
> > As far as spelling mistakes, that's because Versions uses the built-in 
> > spelling functionality and dictionary, which doesn't (and shouldn't) 
> > contain script/function names. I'd bet that most users are more likely to 
> > misspell common words than code symbols anyhow. I've caught a lot of minor 
> > typos this way.
>
> > If I've missed something, please let me know. Thanks!
>
> > - Quinn
>
> --
> Lorin Rivers
> Mosasaur: Killer Technical Marketing 
> 
> 512/203.3198 (m)
>
>  smime.p7s
> 6KViewDownload

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Versions" group.
To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.

Re: autocomplete function name

[Lorin Rivers]

I wonder if adding support for ctags would be achievable?

Also, you didn't seem off-putting to me.

On Feb 9, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Quinn Taylor wrote:

> Disclaimer: Sometimes my tone seems confrontational, but I'm really being 
> nice. I just tend to looks at things objectively and pragmatically. Please 
> don't let me scare you off.  :-)
> 
> I meant "code symbols" to encapsulate function names; for example, it could 
> also include methods, classes, variables, etc.
> 
> File names would be easy to support, but remember that a Subversion 
> repository doesn't necessarily just store source code. Even assuming code, 
> there is a wide variety of programming languages that would have to be 
> supported for such a feature to be considered useful. On top of that, there's 
> an implicit assumption that most people even *put* script/function/class 
> names in their log messages.
> 
> I just a Versions user too, but I'm also a software engineer myself, and my 
> gut reaction is that this feature — while admittedly cool and potentially 
> useful — is one that I would expect to require a lot more time and money than 
> could be justified, especially when compared to other core Subversion 
> features like merging.
> 
> Personally, when I *do* put code symbols (like class and method names) in a 
> log message, I either type them out by hand or copy/paste from the source or 
> a diff. I tend to triple-check changes before committing, so the latter is 
> usually the easiest.
> 
> As far as spelling mistakes, that's because Versions uses the built-in 
> spelling functionality and dictionary, which doesn't (and shouldn't) contain 
> script/function names. I'd bet that most users are more likely to misspell 
> common words than code symbols anyhow. I've caught a lot of minor typos this 
> way.
> 
> If I've missed something, please let me know. Thanks!
> 
> - Quinn

-- 
Lorin Rivers
Mosasaur: Killer Technical Marketing 

512/203.3198 (m)




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: autocomplete function name

[Quinn Taylor]

Disclaimer: Sometimes my tone seems confrontational, but I'm really being nice. 
I just tend to looks at things objectively and pragmatically. Please don't let 
me scare you off.  :-)

I meant "code symbols" to encapsulate function names; for example, it could 
also include methods, classes, variables, etc.

File names would be easy to support, but remember that a Subversion repository 
doesn't necessarily just store source code. Even assuming code, there is a wide 
variety of programming languages that would have to be supported for such a 
feature to be considered useful. On top of that, there's an implicit assumption 
that most people even *put* script/function/class names in their log messages.

I just a Versions user too, but I'm also a software engineer myself, and my gut 
reaction is that this feature — while admittedly cool and potentially useful — 
is one that I would expect to require a lot more time and money than could be 
justified, especially when compared to other core Subversion features like 
merging.

Personally, when I *do* put code symbols (like class and method names) in a log 
message, I either type them out by hand or copy/paste from the source or a 
diff. I tend to triple-check changes before committing, so the latter is 
usually the easiest.

As far as spelling mistakes, that's because Versions uses the built-in spelling 
functionality and dictionary, which doesn't (and shouldn't) contain 
script/function names. I'd bet that most users are more likely to misspell 
common words than code symbols anyhow. I've caught a lot of minor typos this 
way.

If I've missed something, please let me know. Thanks!

 - Quinn

On Feb 8, 2011, at 4:09 PM, dave wrote:

> auto-completion of *script or function names* when writing a log
> message when committing.
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something?
> 
> On Feb 7, 9:16 pm, Quinn Taylor  wrote:
>> Are you talking about auto-completion of code symbols in the context of 
>> writing a log message when committing?
>> 
>>  - Quinn
>> 
>> On Feb 7, 2011, at 1:02 PM, dave wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> {first post here, please be nice :)}
>> 
>>> in other version control clients, a useful feature is autocomplete of
>>> function or script names. instead, most of camelCase scripts are
>>> labeled as spelling mistakes, and must be written out manually in full
>>> (or copied).
>> 
>>> just wanted to suggest this as a useful next feature.
>> 
>>> thanks for great sw, btw!
>> 
>>> (kw: auto-complete camelcase camel-case)



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: autocomplete function name

[dave]

auto-completion of *script or function names* when writing a log
message when committing.

Maybe I'm missing something?

On Feb 7, 9:16 pm, Quinn Taylor  wrote:
> Are you talking about auto-completion of code symbols in the context of 
> writing a log message when committing?
>
>  - Quinn
>
> On Feb 7, 2011, at 1:02 PM, dave wrote:
>
>
>
> > {first post here, please be nice :)}
>
> > in other version control clients, a useful feature is autocomplete of
> > function or script names. instead, most of camelCase scripts are
> > labeled as spelling mistakes, and must be written out manually in full
> > (or copied).
>
> > just wanted to suggest this as a useful next feature.
>
> > thanks for great sw, btw!
>
> > (kw: auto-complete camelcase camel-case)
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> > "Versions" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> > versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group 
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
>
>
>
>  smime.p7s
> 4KViewDownload

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Versions" group.
To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.

Re: autocomplete function name

[Quinn Taylor]

Are you talking about auto-completion of code symbols in the context of writing 
a log message when committing?

 - Quinn

On Feb 7, 2011, at 1:02 PM, dave wrote:

> {first post here, please be nice :)}
> 
> in other version control clients, a useful feature is autocomplete of
> function or script names. instead, most of camelCase scripts are
> labeled as spelling mistakes, and must be written out manually in full
> (or copied).
> 
> just wanted to suggest this as a useful next feature.
> 
> thanks for great sw, btw!
> 
> (kw: auto-complete camelcase camel-case)
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Versions" group.
> To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature