one feature i miss from other text editors are white space indicators
and indentation guides. please see attached screenshot. note the subtle
dots which indicate spaces and the vertical dotted lines which are
usually called indentation guides. i'd love if textmate had options to
display these things.
-moshe
Add this to your language grammar of choice (from a previous thread,
sorry but I couldn't find the link in the archives):
patterns = (
/* your other patterns */
{ name = 'meta.leading-tabs.yaml';
begin = '^(?=\t)';
end = '(?=[^\t])';
patterns = (
{ match = '(\t)(\t)?';
captures =
{ 1 = { name = 'meta.odd-tab'; };
2 = { name = 'meta.even-tab'; };
};
}
);
}
)
___________________
Ben Jackson
Diretor de Desenvolvimento
+55 (21) 9997-0593
ben(a)incomumdesign.com
http://www.incomumdesign.com
On 07/11/2005, at 16.22, Matt Mower wrote:
>> This is rather difficult for me to administrate, so chances are low.
> Do you mean administering this in the menu? Or in general?
Administrate in the code/in general.
> If it was an issue about the menu being dynamic I'd be quite happy
> with Paul Bissex's suggestion of putting the last command executed in
> the status area somewhere.
Yes, it's a very good idea (and I definitely like it), but it's not
something TM was designed to do, so it's a lot of work to “add”, as
it would require several things to be done differently -- so this is
distant future…
Hi Allan,
Sometimes I find myself in the situation where I try a key combination
which doesn't do what I thought but moves the carat leaving me
uncertain what action I have just performed. I know I can hit undo
but given the non-atomic undo nature it leaves me with doubts about
whether my file is changed.
Would it be possible to add a feature that tells you what function a
key combination will invoke?
What I have in mind would be:
select "identity key"
press key combination, e.g. Cmd+Opt+V
TxMt pops up a dialog identifying the bundle & command this will activate
Choose "yes"
Executes command
Choose "no"
Does nothing
This would help me, (a) because I could work out what I *did* do, and
(b) because I could help myself learn key combos safely (by either
passing through to the action or not).
Just a thought, not sure how good of a one though ;-)
M
--
Matt Mower :: http://matt.blogs.it/
It's not exhaustive but it's a start. Kudos to the authors of the Ruby,
Python, and XML bundles for their inspiration.
___________________
Ben Jackson
Diretor de Desenvolvimento
ben(a)incomumdesign.com
http://www.incomumdesign.comhttp://www.unfitforprint.com/
> I haven't figured out what the motivation is for full-screen mode
> when one can maximize the windows, and TM is already very low on
> window decorations, so the extra pixels gained from a real full-
> screen would be minimal.
I think I can speak for more than a few of the people who have
requested this when I say:
It's not about the extra pixels.
It's about minimizing distractions. There's a significant mode switch
that's triggered when all of a sudden the only thing you should be
doing is the only thing you can see on the screen. No bouncing dock
icons, no flashing news reader, no growl notifications, just your words
staring you in the face. It kind of reminds me of the good old days of
green screens and ascii text.
I've used Ulysses and honestly the only thing that made me even
consider dropping the cash on it was this one feature. It's only
implemented by one other OS X program AFAIK (MacJournal) and totally
souped up my writing productivity.
Allan, I know that we're beating a dead horse here, but no one in my
recollection seems to have brought this perspective to the table. What
are your thoughts?
___________________
Ben Jackson
Diretor de Desenvolvimento
ben(a)incomumdesign.com
http://www.incomumdesign.com
I've noticed that right now displaymath modes in latex initiated by $
$ are not handled correctly. It seems that lots of times, though not
entirely consistently, they are being captured by the
string.other.math.tex scope, instead of the
string.other.math.block.latex scope.
In other words, the two dollars signs next to each other are matched
as the begining and end of a simple math mode, instead of being
considered as the beginning of a block math mode. What makes it even
weirder is that the following:
$$\int_{C_{t}}e^{g(z,t)}f(z,t)\d z$$ where $g,f$
would consider the first pair of dollar signs as
string.other.math.tex scope, and the second as the beginning of
string.other.math.block.latex, which then goes on to capture the
entire rest of the document.
So I am wondering, how is this possible that the $$ is not
consistently matched, and what can we do about it?
Haris
Try this:
1. Open a file F1 with extension .pm, Perl mode is correctly
active.
2. Open a second file F2 with extension .pm, Perl mode is
correctly active.
3. Change F2's mode to C mode.
4. Switch back to F1's tab and you'll see it's now in C mode!
Is that a bug?
-- fxn
Just in case you are wondering where does this convoluted experiment
comes from: I am working in a Perl module that has some part written
in C:
http://search.cpan.org/~fxn/Algorithm-Combinatorics/
There's a file ending in .pm that is strictly a Perl module, but that
actually is mostly C except for a few lines, since it uses Inline::C.
I need C mode there to work normally.
While we're talking about the bundle... my number one activity in
writing LaTeX is going in and out of math mode as in
\( blah \) and \[ foo \].
What is the officially encouraged LaTeX bundle way of shortening that task?
- Eric
--
Eric Hsu, Assistant Professor of Mathematics
San Francisco State University
erichsu(a)math.sfsu.edu
http://math.sfsu.edu/hsu