[TxMt] Quick find and open last closed file

[Juan]

El 07/02/2007, a las 21:45, Charilaos Skiadas escribió:

> On Feb 7, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Juan wrote:
>
>> 	I have many many lines of code for to introduce in TM, but I am  
>> worried about the fact that many of them will be impossible since  
>> TM does not preserve states and always depends on external  
>> commands and not have an internal interpreter.  This is a very  
>> deep limitation, you must agree with me.
>
> No sorry, I don't. Partly because I don't understand exactly what  
> you mean by built-in interpreter, and partly because I have found  
> TM very extensible in many ways and there are very few things that  
> find it limiting in. Using external commands has worked great for  
> me because I can code in whatever scripting language I like, rather  
> than be forced to use  whatever language the author decided to have  
> the built-in interpreter in. That's one of the reasons I gave up on  
> emacs.

I have been working with an editor with built interpreter for more  
than ten years.  I understand what you say about Emacs, Stallman  
decision was really argued over.  I don't know about anyone that uses  
elisp, for any other thing than make emacs to work.  I think you,  
like me, like better and modern languages.  No doubt exist about  
which ones are the best, perhaps the order may change, but all of  
this have clear syntax and power regexps managing:

	ruby, tcl, python, etc.

the one selected for being embedded in an editor is not important as  
far as the fact of having any one in it.

Its not true that having an interpreter embedded avoid the using of  
AppleScript, or any other scripting languages.  That hasn't to do  
with that fact.  You always can do "system(args)" with any scripting  
language calling any other with args.

Although I have been working deeply with Tcl and Perl, I recognize I  
fallen in love with Ruby as soon as I have try it.

>
> I think however that there are a lot of things that can be done  
> with TM as it is, and if there is something you think can't be  
> done, then ask the list and perhaps we'll have some ideas about how  
> to do it. If it really can't be done with things as is, and you  
> have a good case for the need for this feature, then your feature  
> request might make it into TM releases sooner than not.


	Of course, I recognize TM has inside very clever design and more  
important, it is really MacOS friendly and it is very well integrated  
in the system exploiting everything in the system and using the  
cleverly the most important frameworks.

But ¡there are so many things that depends on having an EI, embedded  
interpreter, that the extensibility of TM is braked and will need a  
lot of extra efforts for reaching the half of the goals.

The examples I gave to you were only a few and can grow fast.  There  
are many others.  Things like Menu control (building them, etc), open/ 
close hooks (procs that must be called when anything open or closes),  
Access to the document:  position, selecting parts of it, changing  
the insertion point position!!, are all of them impossible with the  
TM model except that in future versions TM hard-coded them and gives  
us direct access by new tricky interface gadgeds.

The most simple thing, like the building of a list of open windows  
inside your external scripting language is near impossible.  You  
should resort to applescripting or so to ask TM for this, if possible.

TM needs an internal well organized dictionary of methods for  
accessing its state and an internal language for building in-memory  
structures.  These both things doesn't have anything to do with the  
external scripting calling ability.  Is my opinion.



-- Juan Falgueras