Is there a setting or preference I've missed that would allow symlinks shown in the File Browser to act like a "normal" folder? That is, to have a disclosure triangle button and unfold to expose its content?
Bob
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Symlinks-as-Expandable-Directories-tp2... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
For various reasons, such as that symlinks may point to disconnected network locations among other things, AFAIK this feature is not planned. At least that's what I picked up from the list when this was brought up in the past.
On 2013-02-02 08:33, bobrocke wrote:
Is there a setting or preference I've missed that would allow symlinks shown in the File Browser to act like a "normal" folder? That is, to have a disclosure triangle button and unfold to expose its content?
Bob
-- View this message in context:
http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Symlinks-as-Expandable-Directories-tp2... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
That would be sad. With TM2's move away from a Project Pane to a File Browser we need this type of flexibility to "force" source code arrangements that don't look like the file system to work within the File Browser. Aliases and synlinks would be ways to do that.
Bob
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Symlinks-as-Expandable-Directories-tp2... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 05/02/2013, at 3:39 AM, bmf brandon@fryslie.com wrote:
For various reasons, such as that symlinks may point to disconnected network locations among other things, AFAIK this feature is not planned.
Do you know if that particular situation was posed as a limitation to the feature being implemented? I feel this could be solved through the use of a disabled state for symlinks that are broken/unavailable for whatever reason.
Testing whether a symlink is broken is probably the easy part, however. Can anyone shed light on the technical implications of allowing symlinks to be traversed in the file browser? (Additionally I've noticed that Finder allows traversal of symlinks in column browser mode, but *not* in list mode.)
–Adam
Alan mentioned that as a blocking issue to that feature being implemented at some point in the past. I'm sure there are various ways to work around the issue but at the moment there doesn't seem to be any plan to work on it.
On 2013-02-04 15:37, Adam Sharp wrote:
On 05/02/2013, at 3:39 AM, bmf brandon@fryslie.com wrote:
For various reasons, such as that symlinks may point to disconnected network locations among other things, AFAIK this feature is not planned.
Do you know if that particular situation was posed as a limitation to the feature being implemented? I feel this could be solved through the use of a disabled state for symlinks that are broken/unavailable for whatever reason.
Testing whether a symlink is broken is probably the easy part, however. Can anyone shed light on the technical implications of allowing symlinks to be traversed in the file browser? (Additionally I've noticed that Finder allows traversal of symlinks in column browser mode, but *not* in list mode.)
–Adam
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
On Feb 4, 2013, at 11:37 PM, Adam Sharp adsharp@me.com wrote:
Can anyone shed light on the technical implications of allowing symlinks to be traversed in the file browser?
With the proper tradeoffs and infinite resources, few software problems are unsolvable.
Most issues are just tedious things, like dealing with path aliasing, or having to setup/maintain fs-events / SCM callbacks for more than the root folder, but for things like doing recursive expansion (option-clicking the triangle), something would clearly have to be done here to guard against cycles and figure out when to break them, if found.
Are Mac aliases any easier/better than symlinks in this regard? Does OSX provide any help in keeping track and managing them to take the burden off the programmer?
Bob
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Symlinks-as-Expandable-Directories-tp2... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Feb 5, 2013, at 13:49, bobrocke bob@bobrockefeller.com wrote:
Are Mac aliases any easier/better than symlinks in this regard? Does OSX provide any help in keeping track and managing them to take the burden off the programmer?
Aliases are worse because these can encapsulate stuff like “to resolve, mount this disk image”, which is why the conceptual model for links (including aliases) is that a link is something you actively resolve once and then go to this new location.
-
Adam Sharp -
Allan Odgaard -
bmf -
bobrocke