Re: [scintilla] Digest for scintilla-interest@googlegroups.com - 1 Message in 1 Topic

[udo lechner]

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:49 AM, <scintilla-int...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

  Today's Topic Summary

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/scintilla-interest/topics

• user configurable explicit fold points [1 Update]

 Topic: user configurable explicit fold points

Neil Hodgson <nyama...@gmail.com> Jan 17 10:17AM +1100 ^

 

> Options, like variables should be positively named rather than
> include a negation like fold.cpp.not.syntax.based. Note that all
> references inside Fold are negated again like:
>    if (!options.foldNotSyntaxBased

Goal of naming it inverted, was, to reach existing property files will run
with same behavior like before. Naming it positively needs to be add
fold.cpp.SyntaxBased=1
to existing porperty files, because OptionSet can't force empty string
to default to true like GetPropertyInt("...", 1) - therefore I suggested
to add this feature to OptionSet. Same problem also arise with
fold.cpp.comment.multiline (and has arised with fold.cpp.comment.explicit),
but the effects are not as crass in this case, if the corresponding
settings are missed.

But if this isn't a problem, I appreciate it to name it without the "not"!

I've also considered your other hints - hope my version of LexCPP.cxx
is now ready to be included in scintilla's code base?

I would then add these features to D, Basic and ASM lexers
(I've them almost ready). Further goals are to implement these features
to all lexers, which haven't any folding function yet, then to thoses
lexers, which folders are derived from C++ or Basic folder
- as desired, I will deliver a patch, which converts these lexers
to lexer objects first.

dlchr

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Folding
fold.cpp.syntax.based=1
fold.cpp.comment.multiline=1
fold.cpp.comment.explicit=1
#defaults for fold.cpp.explicit.start=//{ and fold.cpp.explicit.end=//}
#  can be replaced by defining custom strings, e.g. //[ and //]
#fold.cpp.explicit.start=//[
#fold.cpp.explicit.end=//]
#if fold strings are set to something like /*{{{ and /*}}} (Origami/WinF style fold strings),
#  enable fold.cpp.search.overall to search fold strings beyond line comment start
#fold.cpp.search.overall=1
#fold.at.else=1   

[dlchnr]

completely failed attempt to send a reply to a message from the e-mail
account
in order to mail an attachment too!!!