gray squigglies when code is highlighted
Marc Esher
in the latest release, when i select text, everything gets gray
underline squigglies. is there a way to turn this off?
thanks.
marc
Peter Boughton
Then filter on "Text Selection", to take you to CFEclipse>Editor>Text Selection.
Untick the "Enable Occurence Marking" checkbox.
Um. Although having tested that setting, disabling it also prevents
double-click from highlighting the current word. :/
Marc Esher
> Um. Although having tested that setting, disabling it also prevents
> double-click from highlighting the current word. :/
>
> >
>
Peter Boughton
the colour of it to white (it's the CFEclipse Mark Occurance one,
third from top).
I get multiple Null Pointer Exceptions with that, but the setting does change.
Peter Boughton
(assuming your editor background is white - pick an appropriate other
colour otherwise)
Marc Esher
burnsra
I've found having it on at all slows things down quite a bit. To turn
off just the squiggly lines and keep everything else, do the
following:
Windows - Preferences - General - Editors - Text Editors - Annotations
- CFEclipse Mark Occurences - Uncheck the "Text as Squiggly Line"
check box.
On Jun 29, 9:58 am, Marc Esher <marc.es...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i'll try that. thanks a lot, Peter.
>
Marc Esher
i actually thought you were joking and followed those instructions
just to play along.
Peter Boughton
> - CFEclipse Mark Occurences - Uncheck the "Text as Squiggly Line"
> check box.
Ah... that's interesting.
The checkbox in the CFEclipse area does nothing, but this one does
actually work.
Yet the colour in the CFE area does override the general one.
I presume the reason we have both Annotation sections is one is all
files and one is just cfm/cfc/etc files?
Would be useful to have a single "use global settings" checkbox to
override the whole page, yes?
denstar
>
>> Windows - Preferences - General - Editors - Text Editors - Annotations
>> - CFEclipse Mark Occurences - Uncheck the "Text as Squiggly Line"
>> check box.
>
> Ah... that's interesting.
>
> The checkbox in the CFEclipse area does nothing, but this one does
> actually work.
> Yet the colour in the CFE area does override the general one.
>
>
> I presume the reason we have both Annotation sections is one is all
> files and one is just cfm/cfc/etc files?
That's the idea, I think.
> Would be useful to have a single "use global settings" checkbox to
> override the whole page, yes?
Well, I think more useful would be to either fix our preference page
(which is just an extension of the existing preference page-- there is
not even any code there-- so, um... yeah) or just figure out how to
put a link that opens the "main" annotations preference page, where
our page currently is.
I like the link idea, since really, we're just extending the
texteditor, and a lot of those settings apply to us, separate as we
aim to be.
On a side note, I'm thinking a structured editor would be a better fit
for us/CF, but that'll be a a whiiiiiiiile in coming, I do say.
Anyways, I'm also thinking that we should add a context menu to the
editor's context menu for turning on and off this bad boy.
And I'll be sure to de-couple the double-click stuff from the
occurrence stuff-- if someone wants to create a ticket, that'll remind
me, in case I forget (assign it to denny).
=d
--
To be famous, in fact, one has only to kill one's landlady.
Albert Camus
Marc Esher
preferences are now set up such that there's no longer any need to
"duplicate" a preference. previously this was done because I guess
they didn't know how to combine preference stores. now, however, it
uses a ChainedPreferenceStore so that the cfeclipse prefs and the
general prefs are merged together, with any cfeclipse prefs taking
precedence. so as long as the code looks at the general prefs for any
given setting (like a squiggly dealio) then everything should *just
work*
Peter Boughton
> for us/CF, but that'll be a a whiiiiiiiile in coming, I do say.
What's the difference? Does it treat the file as nodes or something?
And would it be viable/sensible to just go ahead and start something
but keep it seperate, non-default, and so on?
> And I'll be sure to de-couple the double-click stuff from the
> occurrence stuff-- if someone wants to create a ticket, that'll remind
> me, in case I forget (assign it to denny).
I'd go create one if I was on a proper computer, but I've got
hard-drive issues, so it'll have to wait until tomorrow morning
(unless someone else does it before then).
--
Peter Boughton
//hybridchill.com
//blog.bpsite.net
denstar
>
> not sure if it's related, but i can tell you that the editor
> preferences are now set up such that there's no longer any need to
> "duplicate" a preference. previously this was done because I guess
> they didn't know how to combine preference stores. now, however, it
> uses a ChainedPreferenceStore so that the cfeclipse prefs and the
> general prefs are merged together, with any cfeclipse prefs taking
> precedence. so as long as the code looks at the general prefs for any
> given setting (like a squiggly dealio) then everything should *just
> work*
That's the weird thing... all we do is this:
public class AnnotationPreferencePage extends AnnotationsPreferencePage
and have a super().
Color me boggled.
CFE just has to be special, neh? =)
--
To correct a natural indifference I was placed half-way between misery
and the sun. Misery kept me from believing that all was well under the
sun, and the sun taught me that history wasn't everything.
Albert Camus
Marc Esher
of people who have "suffered" eclipse for the past year. you're trying
to explain to them this Annotations and "mark occurrences" goodness.
How do you sell it?
(this will be me, on wednesday)
thanks guys.
marc
denstar
>
>> On a side note, I'm thinking a structured editor would be a better fit
>> for us/CF, but that'll be a a whiiiiiiiile in coming, I do say.
>
> What's the difference? Does it treat the file as nodes or something?
Well, we've already got the file broke into nodes, and then use
"partitions", if I understand it correctly.
From what I can tell, structured text editors are sorta what evolved
from what we're using now (via the eclipse Web Tools stuff, which had
to deal with pretty much all the stuff we have to deal with).
Perhaps geared more for annotating different things, and controlling
those annotations, and whatnot... should be "easy" to plug in HTML and
CSS/JS stuff... (note the quotes). ...Validation, etc., judging by
the preference pane. :-). ...JSP is sorta close to CF, and with
Railo/OBD, I think there are more useful tie-ins we can do these
days...
I'm not exactly in "Eclipse mode" right now, apologies if these posts
have been, um, semi-useful.
> And would it be viable/sensible to just go ahead and start something
> but keep it seperate, non-default, and so on?
MD pulled a pimp move around a year ago, and laid down the needed code
to try writing a tie-in for Aptana or DLTK (I played with the DLTK
one, mostly with the ANTLR stuff MM put up).
That's really what we'd need for the "done right" route, IMO (ground
up)-- but to get to the "done right" we'll need a good lex/parse deal,
and I don't see any reason we couldn't do that like we've got
cfscript. A preference to use the new parser that says "only for
crazy mothers, currently" next to it or some such. Make it easy to
have folks test it out and whathaveyou.
Yeah, that'll be key no matter what route we ultimately take.
I/we really need to chat up the PHP folks. I've been following the
PDT saga, from afar, but I don't really know why they've switched
between using the WTP stuff and DLTK, or, for that matter, which route
they plan on ultimately running with.
It's strange... for all my gregariousness, how I still don't do some
simple networking.
Only so many hours in the day/relationships, I guess.
Anyways, I want to hit them up for some info before we do too much,
try to make things as painless as possible. Don't really "feel" the
Aptana route, but that's just me, I reckon (I could see us as an
Eclipse project proper... maybe hooking up with Railo/JBoss and
offering a way cool solution/stack-- whereas Aptana seems sorta, well,
Aptana (to be clear: not a bad thing)).
>> And I'll be sure to de-couple the double-click stuff from the
>> occurrence stuff-- if someone wants to create a ticket, that'll remind
>> me, in case I forget (assign it to denny).
>
> I'd go create one if I was on a proper computer, but I've got
> hard-drive issues, so it'll have to wait until tomorrow morning
> (unless someone else does it before then).
Dang hard drives. Lost mine last month (clank clank clank)... woohoo!
for the backup solutions available in this day and age!
Evolution... it's what's for dinner.
=]
--
Too many have dispensed with generosity in order to practice charity.
Albert Camus