Xref: utzoo comp.editors:868 comp.sys.ibm.pc:31468 comp.sys.atari.st:17723
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!srcsip!tcnet!pwcs!stag!trb
From: trb@stag.UUCP ( Todd Burkey )
Newsgroups: comp.editors,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Folded release
Message-ID: <1989Jul13.064948.5571@stag.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jul 89 06:49:48 GMT
References: <1989Jul5.150226.24149@stag.UUCP> <218@nikhefh.hep.nl> <1989Jul9.164159.3144@stag.UUCP> <219@nikhefh.hep.nl>
Reply-To: trb@stag.UUCP ( Todd Burkey )
Organization: Mindtools ST Access Group, Plymouth, MN
Lines: 74

In article <219@nikhefh.hep.nl> t68@nikhefh.hep.nl (Jos Vermaseren) writes:
>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.

I feel that the 'act' of folding enhances the readability...in FOLDED,
a fold may consist simply of a hidden comment block, a conditional
logic block that you know works, or maybe the whole procedure. All you
do to create a fold is press a single key and press a key to undo a
fold, so there isn't any useful extra fold info that the user
provides when making a fold. See may apples and oranges comment later
on...

>> One other drawback to this method is the the confusing printouts
>> you get...
>> ... 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.
>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.

I wasn't even thinking of OCCAM...I don't even care to see the minimal
amount of information a fold would entail, scattered through my printouts.
For example:

/* ->folded 33 lines */

would be a sufficient amount of info for FOLDED to have inside the
text. Also, as I mentioned before, this still doesn't help me when I
want to fold parts of a memo or project plan I am writing in cleartext.
I would have to remember to run my files through a filter every time
I wanted to mail, print, or do whatever to them just to get rid of the
'extra' ASCII text.

>> 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.

We are probably comparing apples to oranges here. When FOLDED saves
out a file that has folds in it, the exact users' view of the file
is saved in the fold info file. It sounds like your editor always
starts the user out in a fully folded (and probably optionally fully
unfolded) display each time the pertinent file is called up. FOLDED
uses more dynamic folds. For example, if you fold a block, then fold the
procedure the block was in, and then save the file, the next time you
bring up the file the two levels will still be folded. However, if you
then unfold the outer procedure and save the file again, then the next
time you call up the file all you will see is the single folded block. Just
a difference in 'folding' philosophy.

>...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.

FOLDED looks to see if a directory called 'foldinfo' exists in your
current directory prior to writing out the fold info file. If that
directory exists, then all info and control files go there. Not the
cleanest methodology, but the best I could come up with that would
work as well under Unix as on the PC's. Again, a future solution to
this discussion of where the fold info should go may simply involve
a compromise between our two methodologies...depending on the types
of files being edited and the style of folding being used.

  -Todd Burkey
   pwcs!stag!trb