Re: Wrapping comments

In message , Michael Torrie wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> I tried using Emacs via SSH from a Mac once. Made me run screaming for >> the nearest Windows box >> . > > Interesting rant, but the problem is with

Re: Wrapping comments

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > I tried using Emacs via SSH from a Mac once. Made me run screaming for the > nearest Windows box > . Interesting rant, but the problem is with the key bindings they chose to use in Terminal.

Re: Wrapping comments

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro (LD) wrote: >LD> In message , Nick Craig- >LD> Wood wrote: >>> Rhodri James wrote: >>> Emacs is my editor of choice ... >>> >>> You probably haven't used MAC OS X then! >LD> I tried using Emacs via SSH from a Mac once. Made me run screaming for the >LD> neares

Re: Wrapping comments

In message , Nick Craig- Wood wrote: > Rhodri James wrote: > >> Emacs is my editor of choice ... > > You probably haven't used MAC OS X then! I tried using Emacs via SSH from a Mac once. Made me run screaming for the nearest Windows box

Re: Wrapping comments

In message , Tobias Weber wrote: > (still not gonna use software that doesn't let me type # because it's > alt+3 on a UK layout; having to re-learn or configure that is just sick) Tried typing compose-plus-plus? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Wrapping comments

In message , Tobias Weber wrote: > In article <02159679$0$20647$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> Maybe in another 20 years, nobody will care about low-level details like >> the characters used to write code. Only the tokens really matter. > > You could have that ten y

Re: Wrapping comments

Tobias Weber writes: > In article , > David Robinow wrote: > >> (define-key key-translation-map [?\M-3] "#") >> >> >> or, if you prefer, just be sick. > > Thanks, but I don't believe using releases from people who think I jump > should through hoops just to make my keyboard work is a good pl

Re: Wrapping comments

On Mon, 11 May 2009 08:39:48 +0100, Tobias Weber wrote: In article , "Rhodri James" wrote: What on earth are you talking about? '#' has its own key on a UK layout Not on Apple keyboards, and the emacs release in question is Mac only. My commiserations. That was a bad design decision o

Re: Wrapping comments

2009/5/10 Tobias Weber : > (still not gonna use software that doesn't let me type # because it's > alt+3 on a UK layout; having to re-learn or configure that is just sick) To use Aquamacs with a UK keyboard, you want to select Options, Option Key, Meta & British. Things just work then. -- Cheers

Re: Wrapping comments

norseman wrote: Tobias Weber wrote: Hi, the guideline (PEP 8) is hard wrap to 7x characters. The reason given is that soft wrap makes code illegible. So what if you hard wrap code but let comments and docstrings soft-wrap? Otherwise it's hugely annoying to edit them. Say you remove the first

Re: Wrapping comments

Tobias Weber wrote: Hi, the guideline (PEP 8) is hard wrap to 7x characters. The reason given is that soft wrap makes code illegible. So what if you hard wrap code but let comments and docstrings soft-wrap? Otherwise it's hugely annoying to edit them. Say you remove the first three words of

Re: Wrapping comments

Rhodri James wrote: > On Sun, 10 May 2009 08:32:23 +0100, Tobias Weber wrote: > > > In article , > > Arnaud Delobelle wrote: > > > >> A simple Alt-Q will reformat everything nicely. > > > > Now that's something. Thanks! > > > > (still not gonna use software that doesn't let me type # because

Re: Wrapping comments

On Sun, 10 May 2009 08:32:23 +0100, Tobias Weber wrote: In article , Arnaud Delobelle wrote: A simple Alt-Q will reformat everything nicely. Now that's something. Thanks! (still not gonna use software that doesn't let me type # because it's alt+3 on a UK layout; having to re-learn or con

Re: Wrapping comments

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Tobias Weber wrote: > In article , >  Arnaud Delobelle wrote: > >> A simple Alt-Q will reformat everything nicely. > > Now that's something. Thanks! > > (still not gonna use software that doesn't let me type # because it's > alt+3 on a UK layout; having to re-lear

Re: Wrapping comments

Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Sun, 10 May 2009 13:41:15 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: If I had to print out all the code and documentation I have to look at, I'd need to add another room to my house. You are allowed to throw it away when you're done with it :) Except here in Portland, where

Re: Wrapping comments

On Sun, 10 May 2009 13:41:15 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > If I had to print out all the code and documentation I have to look at, > I'd need to add another room to my house. You are allowed to throw it away when you're done with it :) -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listin

Re: Wrapping comments

On 2009-05-10, Scott David Daniels wrote: >> Nowadays I set my maximum line lengths, and the widths of my terminal >> windows to 100 characters. And I'm wondering whether or not to go wider >> still. After all, the screens can take it. >> > But the printers cannot. Printers? The people who p

Re: Wrapping comments

Tobias Weber wrote: the guideline (PEP 8) is hard wrap to 7x characters. The reason given is that soft wrap makes code illegible. So what if you hard wrap code but let comments and docstrings soft-wrap? You apparently have caught the soft-/hard- disease spread by several software retailers. T

Re: Wrapping comments

In message , Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message , Scott David Daniels > wrote: > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> In message , Tobias Weber >>> wrote: >>> the guideline (PEP 8) is hard wrap to 7x characters. >>> >>> Nowadays I set my maximum line lengths, and the widths of my term

Re: Wrapping comments

In message , Scott David Daniels wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message , Tobias Weber >> wrote: >> >>> the guideline (PEP 8) is hard wrap to 7x characters. >> >> Nowadays I set my maximum line lengths, and the widths of my terminal >> windows to 100 characters. And I'm wondering w

Re: Wrapping comments

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: In message , Tobias Weber wrote: the guideline (PEP 8) is hard wrap to 7x characters. Nowadays I set my maximum line lengths, and the widths of my terminal windows to 100 characters. And I'm wondering whether or not to go wider still. After all, the screens can t

Re: Wrapping comments

In message , Tobias Weber wrote: > the guideline (PEP 8) is hard wrap to 7x characters. Nowadays I set my maximum line lengths, and the widths of my terminal windows to 100 characters. And I'm wondering whether or not to go wider still. After all, the screens can take it. -- http://mail.pytho

Re: Wrapping comments

Tobias Weber writes: > In article <87zldmcod8@benfinney.id.au>, > Ben Finney wrote: > > > Yes. Both Emacs and Vim will do exactly this when re-wrapping a > > Thought so. And editors without a learning curve? A text editor that will be useful in all of your computing is something worth le

Re: Wrapping comments

Tobias Weber writes: > In article , > Scott David Daniels wrote: > >> At least vim and emacs can do so. > > Just tried Aquamacs. Using the defaults it correctly re-wraped > docstrings using newlines when inserting, but not when removing words. > So even with the prime editor hard wrap seems, f

Re: Wrapping comments

code are the only conceivable sets of characters. Even if they are (and they're not), the OP didn't ask about inserting hard/soft *characters*. He asked about *actions*: hard-wrapping code and soft-wrapping comments. He does that (presumably) by inserting newline characters in cod

Re: Wrapping comments

Tobias Weber writes: > Or are there editors that can do a "soft hard wrap" while keeping > indentation and #comment markers intact? Yes. Both Emacs and Vim will do exactly this when re-wrapping a paragraph of commented lines, provided they have support for the language's comment syntax (which,