Xref: utzoo comp.editors:864 comp.sys.ibm.pc:31340 comp.sys.atari.st:17680
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!nikhefh!t68
From: t68@nikhefh.hep.nl (Jos Vermaseren)
Newsgroups: comp.editors,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Folded release
Message-ID: <219@nikhefh.hep.nl>
Date: 11 Jul 89 11:57:01 GMT
References: <1989Jul5.150226.24149@stag.UUCP> <218@nikhefh.hep.nl> <1989Jul9.164159.3144@stag.UUCP>
Reply-To: t68@nikhefh.hep.nl (Jos Vermaseren)
Organization: Nikhef-H, Amsterdam (the Netherlands).
Lines: 60

Subject: Re: Folded release
Newsgroups: comp.editors,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.atari.st
References: <1989Jul5.150226.24149@stag.UUCP> <218@nikhefh.hep.nl> <1989Jul9.164159.3144@stag.UUCP>

In article <1989Jul9.164159.3144@stag.UUCP>, trb@stag.UUCP ( Todd Burkey ) writes:
> ....    One reason I keep fold and
> relational info in a seperate file is because I don't want thi
> info transported when I send a file to someone. Folding and relations
> tend to be a fairly personal thing. I may fold closed all my
> procedures that I know work and don't need enhancement, while someone
> else may just wish to fold closed comment blocks.

Coding itself is also rather personal. In a well designed program the
folds will enhance the readability of the code like the commentary does.
Therefore the fold info belongs with the code and not outside the program.
What you are proposing is like putting the commentary in a separate file.

> >The fold information is stored in the file itself in such a way
> >that the user can make it into commentary for whatever language
> >that he happens to work in.
> 
> One other drawback to this method is the the confusing printouts
> you get (I used this method 3 years ago to implement a simple minded
> folding capability...and also implemented folding in vi and the Apollo
> DM editor using the same concept). A more critical drawback, to me,
> is that pure text files can't be folded when you store the information
> back into the text file. This was important to me, since I tend to
> use FOLDED as a thought processor and task planner as well as a source
> code editor.
> 
Not so. The fold information is entirely in ASCII.
It is the folding editor of the OCCAM package which makes a mess of it
by storing the fold info in terms of Ctrl-O and Ctrl-P at the beginning
of lines.

> If I saved the fold or relational information
> out to the actual file each time, then 'make' would have a field day
> everytime I rebuilt the executable.

a: In the above scheme folds can be opened or closed at will (one at a
time or all at the same time). Opening a fold doesn't change anything
externally (only the internal representation in the editor is affected),
so the file doesn't get modified. So make is safe.
b: If it would be as you say a simple touch whatever.o would help you out.
   In an editor that allows procedure definitions you could have it touch
   the corresponding .o file before exiting if only folds were changed.
   I admit that that would be messy, but notice the `if'.

I have still not been convinced that the fold info should be in a separate
file. It is true that if one likes to put the fold info in the file
to which it belongs the convention should be chosen very carefully in
full anticipation of things that might be annoying. The same holds
however for schemes that put the fold info outside the file and I can
think of many more ways in which that is annoying.
(Little example: I have two files rather than one. This doubles the number
of files in my directory. This makes my file system much slower when
the (sub)directory contains a large number of source files. On UNIX I
would have to get my file number quota changed).

Jos Vermaseren