[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IDE
From: |
Lluís |
Subject: |
Re: IDE |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Oct 2015 14:36:48 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) |
Dmitry Gutov writes:
> On 10/21/2015 05:52 PM, Lluís wrote:
>>> I don't understand C. Is module1 still inside project? Is it still a
>>> dependency?
>>> Do we treat it differently WRT to questions I've asked for the option A?
>>
>> Ok, so what if we let project-types define project nesting?
> Every new thing, like projects being allowed to have children (or modules; are
> modules different from projects?), or paths being possibly non-recursive,
> raises
> complexity of the API, and makes it less straightforward to use it.
> That's why I asking questions: which commands people would want to see
> implemented, that would consume information about project structure, and how
> they would expect the said commands to behave WRT to nesting, submodules, etc.
> For example, if when we're working on a submodule we don't *really* need to
> know
> that we're inside a bigger project (or at least don't need to impart that
> information to most project-related commands), we can avoid the notion of
> nesting in the API, and just ask any project implementation to return the
> "module" we're currently in as the current project.
> And a lot of languages don't have the same kind of modules that Maven-based
> Java
> projects use. Would the notion 'children' be only useful for Java projects?
That's right. I see "modules" and "projects" as the same thing in terms of
services. The only point where it *might* make sense to expose nesting in the
interface is to define a project that uses the services of some other project in
a parent directory.
Internally, it would probably make sense to be aware of nesting, but I agree
that exposing it on the interface adds complexity that is better avoided.
Cheers,
Lluis
--
"And it's much the same thing with knowledge, for whenever you learn
something new, the whole world becomes that much richer."
-- The Princess of Pure Reason, as told by Norton Juster in The Phantom
Tollbooth
- Re: IDE, (continued)
- Re: IDE, Lluís, 2015/10/19
- Re: IDE, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/10/19
- Re: IDE, Lluís, 2015/10/20
- Re: IDE, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/10/20
- Re: IDE, Lluís, 2015/10/21
- Re: IDE, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/10/21
- Re: IDE, Steinar Bang, 2015/10/20
- Re: IDE, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/10/20
- Re: IDE, Lluís, 2015/10/21
- Re: IDE, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/10/27
- Re: IDE,
Lluís <=
- Re: IDE, Steinar Bang, 2015/10/27
- Re: IDE, Filipp Gunbin, 2015/10/28
- Re: IDE, Steinar Bang, 2015/10/28
- Re: IDE, Filipp Gunbin, 2015/10/28
- Re: IDE, Richard Stallman, 2015/10/28
- Re: IDE, Xue Fuqiao, 2015/10/16
- Re: IDE, Eric Ludlam, 2015/10/16
- Re: IDE, David Engster, 2015/10/18
- Re: IDE, Eric Ludlam, 2015/10/16
- Is EDE only intended to be used with languages which /require/ a 'compile' step? [was: Re: IDE], Alexis, 2015/10/16