[TADS 3] Editors

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Brian Ronk

unread,
Sep 4, 2004, 6:22:36 PM9/4/04
to
I'm curious, what programs do people use to edit there TADS source?
Many use the Workbench I'm guessing to manage the files, but what about
editing them? I've been using EditPad Light, but I'm looking into one
called ConTEXT. You can add your own custom programming syntax to it,
which could be nice. If anyone has one for TADS 3 with ConTEXT, let me
know. If not, I'll try making one and see how far I get.

M.D. Dollahite

unread,
Sep 5, 2004, 12:21:20 AM9/5/04
to

From what I've seen, you and I are probably the only two people here using
ConTEXT. Seems most people use Imaginate, but it doesn't really handle T3 very
well yet.

You're welcome to use my highlighter file:
http://www.members.aol.com/ryukage/files/TADS3.CHL
I went through the language docs and pulled out every keyword, constant, and
standard macro I could find, though I may have missed a couple obscure ones.

I think I've tried every freeware text editor ever made, and ConTEXT was the
only one that lived up to even my lowered expectations. You might find better
if you don't mind being forced to look at an ugly font like fixedsys instead of
Courier New, and if you don't care about being able to use bold and italic as
well as color, but even so I'd still rank ConTEXT in the top 5.

ConTEXT does have an annoying habit of flaking out when it sees a multiline
string, but all you have to do is pull down the combobox on the toolbar and
reselect the language; that'll refresh the highlightling. It also has trouble
remembering the closing brace character, I have to keep re-entering it every
time I start the program. It's bothersome, but not nearly as annoying as the
whopper bugs I've seen in editors with better reputations.

One other warning, the ConTEXT download server is kinda flaky. You may have to
try two or three times before it'll send you the entire file -- and when the
download fails, the server still reports a successful transfer to the browser,
so you have to check the size of the downloaded file and make sure you got it
all.

Eric Eve

unread,
Sep 5, 2004, 4:49:57 AM9/5/04
to
"M.D. Dollahite" <ryu...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20040905002120...@mb-m17.aol.com...

> >I'm curious, what programs do people use to edit there TADS
source?
> >Many use the Workbench I'm guessing to manage the files, but what
about
> >editing them? I've been using EditPad Light, but I'm looking
into one
> >called ConTEXT. You can add your own custom programming syntax
to it,
> >which could be nice. If anyone has one for TADS 3 with ConTEXT,
let me
> >know. If not, I'll try making one and see how far I get.
>
> From what I've seen, you and I are probably the only two people
here using
> ConTEXT. Seems most people use Imaginate, but it doesn't really
handle T3 very
> well yet.

I'm one of the 'most people' who use Imaginate with TADS 3; you're
right that it's handling of TADS 3 is less than perfect right now,
but the aspects of TADS 3 it doesn't handle aren't really handled by
any more general-purpose editor either, and I have to say that
Imaginate generally works pretty well for me.

However, when I want to edit a file that isn't part of an Imaginate
project, I generally don't want to go through the business of
creating an Imaginate project just for the purpose, so I then use
Source Edit, which is also IMHO quite a nice editor (with a rather
Imaginate-like editor interface so that switching between the two is
pretty straightforward).

-- Eric


Brian Ronk

unread,
Sep 5, 2004, 3:45:05 PM9/5/04
to
I'll try your highlighter. I won't be needing any of the obscure
macros and such probably, so I won't notice that.
I'm guessing Imaginate will get updated for TADS3 eventaully, but I
don't like that I can't add files to the project and edit them.
I think I did have to restart the download once. Oh well. I got it,
and it's running fine now. I'll watch for the other habit you
mentioned though.

Eric Eve

unread,
Sep 5, 2004, 3:59:47 PM9/5/04
to
"Brian Ronk" <paladi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:chfqc1$j...@odak26.prod.google.com...

> I'm guessing Imaginate will get updated for TADS3 eventaully, but
I
> don't like that I can't add files to the project and edit them.

BTW I suppose you do know the workaround to this? You create a
source file that Imaginate uses as its project file, and simply use
it to #include all the real source files in your project. It's not
ideal, especially as you have to create each new source file
externally (you're meant to be able to do so from within Imaginate,
but so far as I can see this doesn't work properly), but since only
a tiny proportion of the time spent working on a project is taken up
with adding new source files, I don't find this too much of a
problem in practice.

-- Eric


M.D. Dollahite

unread,
Sep 5, 2004, 11:21:00 PM9/5/04
to
>I'm one of the 'most people' who use Imaginate with TADS 3; you're
>right that it's handling of TADS 3 is less than perfect right now,
>but the aspects of TADS 3 it doesn't handle aren't really handled by
>any more general-purpose editor either, and I have to say that
>Imaginate generally works pretty well for me.

It may have been upgraded since I tried it, but the three main problems I
identified were these:
1. didn't understand the concept of separate compilation
2. the class browser was confused by template syntax
3. some of the menus flickered several times before appearing

#3 isn't specific to TADS 3, but being a programmer myself I know that it
indicates that the programmer doesn't fully understand the workings of the
Windows API, and may be a sign of deeper problems in the app, thus it made me
nervous to use the program.

For #2 you're right, no other editor has a TADS-compatible class browser
either.

#1 was what really put me off Imaginate. I couldn't find any way to create a
project with multiple source files, and even if I could it would annoy me to
have to manually create a second project file for every project. Most other
editors, including ConTEXT and my other two favorites, syn and EditPlus, have a
Windows Explorer file browser embedded in a tool pane which can be filtered for
certain file types. For me, this works just as well and maybe better than a
project file; I can open other files without switching back to Workbench, and I
can quickly open other files that aren't active parts of the project.
Imaginate does not have a built-in file browser, a feature I would want even in
an editor that did understand Workbench project files.

Eric Eve

unread,
Sep 6, 2004, 3:47:45 AM9/6/04
to
"M.D. Dollahite" <ryu...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20040905232100...@mb-m24.aol.com...

> >I'm one of the 'most people' who use Imaginate with TADS 3;
you're
> >right that it's handling of TADS 3 is less than perfect right
now,
> >but the aspects of TADS 3 it doesn't handle aren't really handled
by
> >any more general-purpose editor either, and I have to say that
> >Imaginate generally works pretty well for me.
>
> It may have been upgraded since I tried it, but the three main
problems I
> identified were these:
> 1. didn't understand the concept of separate compilation
> 2. the class browser was confused by template syntax
> 3. some of the menus flickered several times before appearing
>
> #3 isn't specific to TADS 3, but being a programmer myself I know
that it
> indicates that the programmer doesn't fully understand the
workings of the
> Windows API, and may be a sign of deeper problems in the app, thus
it made me
> nervous to use the program.

That's strange; I don't recall seeing this with Imaginate, and it
doesn't happen with the version I have right now (1.5.0).

> #1 was what really put me off Imaginate. I couldn't find any way
to create a
> project with multiple source files, and even if I could it would
annoy me to
> have to manually create a second project file for every project.
Most other
> editors, including ConTEXT and my other two favorites, syn and
EditPlus, have a
> Windows Explorer file browser embedded in a tool pane which can be
filtered for
> certain file types. For me, this works just as well and maybe
better than a
> project file; I can open other files without switching back to
Workbench, and I
> can quickly open other files that aren't active parts of the
project.
> Imaginate does not have a built-in file browser, a feature I would
want even in
> an editor that did understand Workbench project files.

Yes, there is a problem here. Elsewhere in this thread I've
explained the workaround - it is, in fact, perfectly possible to wor
k with a multiple file project without having to create a whole lot
of new projects, and in practice this works well enough for me. But
I agree it's a bit annoying that you can't easily open some
completely unrelated file you might want to work with for some
reason - that's one of the main reason I use Source Edit too.

-- Eric


Richard Northedge

unread,
Sep 6, 2004, 7:40:08 AM9/6/04
to
> It may have been upgraded since I tried it, but the three main problems I
> identified were these:
> 1. didn't understand the concept of separate compilation
> 2. the class browser was confused by template syntax
> 3. some of the menus flickered several times before appearing
>
> #3 isn't specific to TADS 3, but being a programmer myself I know that it
> indicates that the programmer doesn't fully understand the workings of the
> Windows API, and may be a sign of deeper problems in the app, thus it made me
> nervous to use the program.

I think I have responded to the menu-flickering issue before, but let
me explain:

Imaginate is written in VB6. I began work on it before Windows XP was
released. The menu controls that come with VB6 don't have support for
icons etc. so I turned to a free menu control from the vbaccelerator
site and plugged that in. I am perfectly capable of using the Windows
API but I'd rather spend my time providing useful IF tools than
fiddling about with GDI getting menus to draw properly. I guess I
could have just stuck with icon-less menus, but I wanted the
application to look good.

I have tracked down one specific instance of menu-flickering to a
mistake in my code calling one of the vbaccelarator control's methods
- this is fixed in source but I have not released a version with this
fix in it. There are a few other menu issues (not flickering-related)
but they are XP-specific, and presumably due to the fact that the
vbaccelerator control was written before XP was released. I could
delve deeper into this, or switch back to normal VB menus, but as I
say my time is limited and there's plenty of other work to be done.

> For #2 you're right, no other editor has a TADS-compatible class browser
> either.

The 1.5 release of Imaginate just parses the TADS 3 code as if it were
TADS 2. Not surprising it doesn't understand template syntax! I have
been working on a TADS 3 specific parser, but it's macros, not
templates, that are giving me the most headaches.

> #1 was what really put me off Imaginate. I couldn't find any way to create a
> project with multiple source files, and even if I could it would annoy me to
> have to manually create a second project file for every project.

Yeah. I have this fixed in source, but due to the macros issue
mentioned above, and various other TADS 3 items that I haven't
accounted for yet, I haven't been able to make a release for a while.

> Imaginate does not have a built-in file browser, a feature I would want even in
> an editor that did understand Workbench project files.

Why? I know lots of editors do this, but personally I can't see
what's wrong with bringing up an Explorer window. Am I missing some
time saving shortcut here?

Richard

Marno

unread,
Sep 6, 2004, 9:31:30 AM9/6/04
to
"Brian Ronk" <paladi...@gmail.com> conjectured with some small
degree of hope in message news:<chfqc1$j...@odak26.prod.google.com>...

>
>I'm guessing Imaginate will get updated for TADS3 eventaully,
>

And I'm hoping that Imaginate will be updated for ALAN 3 eventually --
tho of course ALAN 3 is not yet in Beta -- ;0)

-- Mike

Eric Eve

unread,
Sep 6, 2004, 9:48:15 AM9/6/04
to

"Richard Northedge" <rnort...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c31c7fe7.04090...@posting.google.com...

> > It may have been upgraded since I tried it, but the three main
problems I
> > identified were these:
> > 1. didn't understand the concept of separate compilation
> > 2. the class browser was confused by template syntax
> > 3. some of the menus flickered several times before appearing

> > #1 was what really put me off Imaginate. I couldn't find any


way to create a
> > project with multiple source files, and even if I could it would
annoy me to
> > have to manually create a second project file for every project.
>
> Yeah. I have this fixed in source, but due to the macros issue
> mentioned above, and various other TADS 3 items that I haven't
> accounted for yet, I haven't been able to make a release for a
while.
>
> > Imaginate does not have a built-in file browser, a feature I
would want even in
> > an editor that did understand Workbench project files.
>
> Why? I know lots of editors do this, but personally I can't see
> what's wrong with bringing up an Explorer window. Am I missing
some
> time saving shortcut here?

I don't miss having a built-in file browser in Imaginate (there's
one in Source Edit, which looks quite like Imaginate-like, and I
never use it). What I do miss is not being able to open, edit and
create files that are not directly part of the project that
Imaginate thinks I'm working on. This can arise for a number of
reasons, e.g.:

(1) I want to open an unrelated file so I can copy a block of
code and paste it into the project I'm working on, or just remind
myself how something worked.

(2) I want to create a new file and add it to the project (the
way of doing this from within Imaginate, by adding a new file to the
list of includes, currently causes a run-time error when you try to
save the new file, as I've mentioned before - so in practice you
have to use an external application to create the new file first).

(3) I want to look inside a library file, or perhaps a library
extension file - perhaps to make a temporary fix, or perhaps just to
inspect it.

The fact that I can't easily do any of these things means I'm having
to resort to another tool (Source Edit, or even Notepad) to do tasks
that I really shouldn't need to leave the editor for. So I really
think Imaginate needs an Open Source File and New Source File
options as well as an Open Project File and New Project File options
on its File menu (as I'm sure I've said before). Using the standard
Windows dialogue boxes for this would, for me, remove any pressing
need for a file manager pane (which I personally don't really need
as such in any case).

I really do think that although it's useful to be able to organize
groups of source files by projects with Imaginate, forcing users to
work that way all the time without letting them open, create, edit
and save individual source files on an ad-hoc basis is unnecessarily
restrictive. To repeat what I said before, it in fact forces me to
use another editor for these tasks.

Just my 2p worth.

-- Eric

Steve Breslin

unread,
Sep 6, 2004, 10:28:33 PM9/6/04
to
Brian Ronk writes:
> I'm curious, what programs do people use to edit their TADS source?

I use Programmer's File Editor for all my programming work. I suppose
syntax highlighting is nice, but I've never found a flawless syntax
highlighter for Tads. I personally find syntax highlighting mostly
useless, and somewhat obtrusive; and if it's flawed, I find it's
annoying and mostly useless and somewhat obtrusive.

I'm probably in the "vast minority" though.

I have in the past used emacs, which is slightly faster once you learn
it. But it's also gargantuan -- one metaphor being "driving in a nail
by rolling a tank over it."

M.D. Dollahite

unread,
Sep 6, 2004, 11:15:22 PM9/6/04
to
>> Imaginate does not have a built-in file browser, a feature I would want
>even in
>> an editor that did understand Workbench project files.
>
>Why? I know lots of editors do this, but personally I can't see
>what's wrong with bringing up an Explorer window. Am I missing some
>time saving shortcut here?
>
>Richard
>

Windows Explorer always starts up either in My Documents, My Computer, or the
Start Menu folder. On Windows XP it can also be started up in My Pictures or
My Music. I store my TADS projects in "My Documents/My Games/TADS 3", so
whatever folder I start from, I have to navigate through at least two levels
cluttered with dozens of other files and folders to get to my TADS project.
Even on my 2gHz system, it can sometimes take XP up to a minute to read the
file list for each directory.

A file pane built into the editor, on the other hand, goes directly where I
need it when I start the editor. Also, most editors provide UI to filter the
listing on file type, so I don't have to wait so long for Windows to read the
directory when I do navigate.

As Eric has pointed out, it's often necessary to open files that aren't part of
a project -- library source code, backup versions, etc. So an Open File
command at least is a necessity, and a file pane is much faster for files that
exist in the current directory.

Even when I use an editor that has project files, I usually don't use them.
The file browse pane is faster, easier, and doesn't limit me to preselected
files. It may just be my personal preference, but given the choice between a
file pane and a project pane, I'll take the file pane.

>I think I have responded to the menu-flickering issue before, but let
>me explain:

Not that I've seen since I've been here. Of course I don't read every thread.
But in any case, if you don't want to explain repeatedly, you should put up a
"known bugs" list on the Imaginate page. I didn't see any last time I was
there.

>Imaginate is written in VB6.

Wow, I didn't realize that. Now I don't want to touch it with a 10-foot pole.
IMO, VB comes in second only to Java for Worst Programming Language Ever.

>I am perfectly capable of using the Windows
>API but I'd rather spend my time providing useful IF tools than
>fiddling about with GDI getting menus to draw properly.

Careful, you could end up proving my point. If Imaginate were written in C++
as I had originally assumed, the problem would not be the GDI but rather the
way your WinProc was handling menu commands -- that sort of flickering is
usually a result of trying to display the menu before it's been properly
initialized, a bug which is typically caused by the programmer not having a
full understanding of what messages Windows sends when.

But VB probably takes care of the WinProc for you, though I expect it's still
possible to write bad message handlers that create the same glitches. But as
far as I'm concerned, the fact that Imaginate is written in VB is sufficient
explaination for any and all bugs, glitches, crashes, and other misbehaviours
it might exhibit. VB is just a flaky and unstable platform.

Fortytwo

unread,
Sep 6, 2004, 11:41:17 PM9/6/04
to
M.D. Dollahite wrote:
> As Eric has pointed out, it's often necessary to open files that aren't part of
> a project -- library source code, backup versions, etc. So an Open File
> command at least is a necessity, and a file pane is much faster for files that
> exist in the current directory.

Visual Slickedit has things called aliases. They're sort of like
mini-macros. For instance, I've defined "t3" to be the root of the tads
3 installation directory. That way, when I want to search the tads3
source code I just open up the find dialog box and type "t3<ctrl-space>"
and it expands the the tads 3 directory.

I define an alias for every directory that I commonly use or search. I
just navigate the directory tree normally for rare things, but for
common things I can jump right to them with the alias.


>>Imaginate is written in VB6.
>
> Wow, I didn't realize that. Now I don't want to touch it with a 10-foot pole.
> IMO, VB comes in second only to Java for Worst Programming Language Ever.

It's so silly to make inflammatory comments like that. I would use an
editor written in COBOL if it was a good editor.

Besides, when it comes to general programming languages, they're all
within a small ballpark of each other. Syntax is only one small part of
what makes a language powerful.

The major difference between any two general languages are its
libraries. Some languages like C++ have plenty of disparate libraries,
but they're scattered far and wide. Only the core stuff is standardized.
Java has standards up the ying-yang. It's astounding and, to be honest,
humbling, to see all the apis/frameworks/libraries out there.

Trust me, if you have a religious attitude about programming languages
then one day you will eventually end up being that old fuddy duddy in
the corner who everyone thinks is experienced but hopelessly out of date.

BrettW

unread,
Sep 7, 2004, 6:23:49 AM9/7/04
to
I use Xemacs (on Windows). Sometimes the TADS highlighter causes me grief,
but I'm pretty proficient now.

BrettW

Richard Northedge

unread,
Sep 7, 2004, 2:34:52 PM9/7/04
to
> As Eric has pointed out, it's often necessary to open files that aren't part of
> a project -- library source code, backup versions, etc. So an Open File
> command at least is a necessity, and a file pane is much faster for files that
> exist in the current directory.

I agree with Eric that Imaginate would benefit greatly from being able
to open other source files that aren't part of the project. There's a
number of ways to do this and I think I need to think a bit about the
design.

> you should put up a
> "known bugs" list on the Imaginate page.

That's a very good idea. I will do this as soon as I can.

> IMO, VB comes in second only to Java for Worst Programming Language Ever.

That's a joke, right? I mean, what's wrong with java? :-)

> >I am perfectly capable of using the Windows
> >API but I'd rather spend my time providing useful IF tools than
> >fiddling about with GDI getting menus to draw properly.
>
> Careful, you could end up proving my point. If Imaginate were written in C++

You misunderstand me - I was talking about the whole "rolling your own
menus" vs. "finding some free code to plug into my application" thing.
If the aim of my project was to make a nice looking menu, I'd build a
menu control. If the aim of my project is to write an IF tool (which
it is), I'd concentrate on that and not worry about lower level
details. Which is, I guess, one of the main reasons why I chose a
higher-level language to implement in - without VB's RAD features I
wouldn't have achieved the early "wins" necessary for me to continue
to build and develop the application.

> But as
> far as I'm concerned, the fact that Imaginate is written in VB is sufficient
> explaination for any and all bugs, glitches, crashes, and other misbehaviours
> it might exhibit. VB is just a flaky and unstable platform.

You're entitled to your opinion, but that's just not my experience.

> Now I don't want to touch it with a 10-foot pole.

I'm not forcing anyone to use Imaginate. I wrote it originally for
myself, and then released it because I thought it might be a useful
tool to contribute to the IF community. I have received messages to
the effect that some people do find it useful. I was reluctant to
bill the current version (1.5) as "supporting TADS 3" because I knew
that the differences between TADS 2 and 3 were massive, but Eric Eve
persuaded me that it could be of some (greater than zero) use to TADS
3 users as-is, while I have been updating the source to try and close
the gaps. There's lots of work that could be done on it, and I don't
have an infinite amount of time to do it in, but I hope I can continue
to improve it and that it can be of use to some people.

Richard

Eric Eve

unread,
Sep 7, 2004, 3:04:49 PM9/7/04
to
"Richard Northedge" <rnort...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c31c7fe7.04090...@posting.google.com...

> I agree with Eric that Imaginate would benefit greatly from being


able
> to open other source files that aren't part of the project.
There's a
> number of ways to do this and I think I need to think a bit about
the
> design.

I take it one issue is that Imaginate has to know which language the
file being open is in. Perhaps the rules to follow would be:

(1) If a project is aleady open, assume any separate source file
is in the same language (it's unlikely that I'll be working on a
TADS 3 project and want to open an Inform .h file).

(2) Otherwise, allow a user to define a default mapping from file
extensions to language (e.g. whether a .t file is TADS 2 or TADS 3,
or a .h file is Inform, TADS 2 or TADS 3, and so on).

(3) Allow some mechanism for overriding the default chosen (in 2)
if for some reason an author is opening a source file in an
unexpected language (e.g. if the user usually works with TADS 3 but
decided to edit an Inform .h file today).

> I'm not forcing anyone to use Imaginate. I wrote it originally
for
> myself, and then released it because I thought it might be a
useful
> tool to contribute to the IF community. I have received messages
to
> the effect that some people do find it useful. I was reluctant to
> bill the current version (1.5) as "supporting TADS 3" because I
knew
> that the differences between TADS 2 and 3 were massive, but Eric
Eve
> persuaded me that it could be of some (greater than zero) use to
TADS
> 3 users as-is, while I have been updating the source to try and
close
> the gaps. There's lots of work that could be done on it, and I
don't
> have an infinite amount of time to do it in, but I hope I can
continue
> to improve it and that it can be of use to some people.

Well, it's certainly of use to me!

Thanks,

Eric


M.D. Dollahite

unread,
Sep 8, 2004, 1:01:27 AM9/8/04
to
>It's so silly to make inflammatory comments like that. I would use an
>editor written in COBOL if it was a good editor.

COBOL is capable of creating a good program. VB isn't. I've had way too many
VB programs flake out and crash my system to trust that language ever again.

>Besides, when it comes to general programming languages, they're all
>within a small ballpark of each other. Syntax is only one small part of
>what makes a language powerful.
>
>The major difference between any two general languages are its
>libraries. Some languages like C++ have plenty of disparate libraries,
>but they're scattered far and wide. Only the core stuff is standardized.
>Java has standards up the ying-yang. It's astounding and, to be honest,
>humbling, to see all the apis/frameworks/libraries out there.

That's normally true, but not of VB and Java, because they're interpreted
instead of native. And unfortunately, the interpreters are pieces of crap.

>Trust me, if you have a religious attitude about programming languages
>then one day you will eventually end up being that old fuddy duddy in
>the corner who everyone thinks is experienced but hopelessly out of date.

I don't have a religious attitude about programming languages. I'm perfectly
happy with apps written in C++, Delphi, FoxPro, or practically anything else.
I dislike VB and Java because I've never seen a program in either language that
was either fast or stable. On top of that, Java is needlessly restrictive
about what you're allowed to do (no bitwise operators, no pointers, no
functions), and VB has needlessly complicated syntax (BASIC invents new
keywords and special syntax for virtually everything, whereas C only has two or
three syntax patterns used consistently).

And personally, I'd rather be "the old fuddy-duddy in the corner" who's
actually done his homework and made an informed choice than a fashion slave who
thoughtlessly follows the current fad whatever it may be just to look hip in
the eyes of other mindless fashion slaves. The comments I make on VB and Java
are based on research and experience, not language loyalty.

Richard Northedge

unread,
Sep 8, 2004, 1:31:46 PM9/8/04
to

"M.D. Dollahite" <ryu...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20040908010127...@mb-m06.aol.com...

> That's normally true, but not of VB and Java, because they're interpreted
> instead of native. And unfortunately, the interpreters are pieces of
crap.
>

> The comments I make on VB and Java
> are based on research and experience, not language loyalty.

Visual Basic "classic" (as opposed to .NET) compiles to native code, and has
done since VB5 was released in 1997.

Richard


Hal Redding

unread,
Sep 9, 2004, 10:28:10 AM9/9/04
to
ryu...@aol.comNOSPAM (M.D. Dollahite) wrote:
> I think I've tried every freeware text editor ever made, and ConTEXT was the
> only one that lived up to even my lowered expectations. You might find better
> if you don't mind being forced to look at an ugly font like fixedsys instead of
> Courier New, and if you don't care about being able to use bold and italic as
> well as color, but even so I'd still rank ConTEXT in the top 5.
>
> ConTEXT does have an annoying habit of flaking out when it sees a multiline
> string, but all you have to do is pull down the combobox on the toolbar and
> reselect the language; that'll refresh the highlightling. It also has trouble
> remembering the closing brace character, I have to keep re-entering it every
> time I start the program. It's bothersome, but not nearly as annoying as the
> whopper bugs I've seen in editors with better reputations.

I was looking for a good editor, so I tried Context, using the .CHL
file you posted the link to. Thanks for that.

I experienced the same annoying multi-line string problems, so I
posted a message to the ConTEXT group:

http://www.context.cx/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=feature_rq;action=display;num=1094413503

They couldn't fix the problem, but they did say that there is no such
problem when using ConTEXT to edit other languages that use multi-line
strings.

Sigh... I have no answers. Sorry.

Gene Wirchenko

unread,
Sep 10, 2004, 11:07:02 AM9/10/04
to
"Richard Northedge" <rnort...@hotmail.com> wrote:

VB6 can compile to native code, but it does not have to.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

RootShell

unread,
Sep 10, 2004, 1:40:23 PM9/10/04
to
>
> VB6 can compile to native code, but it does not have to.
>

Exactly.. And the speed improves vastly. VB can be very good for fast
implementations needs. and the learning curve compared to C is quite
smaller.

--
ZXSpectrum "Name The Game" - Can you guess the name of ZXSpectrum games,
just by looking at a ingame picture? Well you can find out if you can (or
not) at.... http://ntg.docaj.net
--


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages