Re: [off]sublimeText update

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:08 AM Mike Kerner via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > The watcher would also be a nice addition to the fileBrowser > dataViewTree... > Indeed it would! It would be great it someone could wrap fswatch up in an LCB extension that people could easil

Re: [off]sublimeText update

The watcher would also be a nice addition to the fileBrowser dataViewTree... On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:25 AM Ralf Bitter via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > Trevor, this looks very promising. Thanks > for looking into it. > > Ralf > > > > On 26. Mar 2019, at 15:05, Trevor

Re: [off]sublimeText update

Trevor, this looks very promising. Thanks for looking into it. Ralf > On 26. Mar 2019, at 15:05, Trevor DeVore via use-livecode > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:28 AM Ralf Bitter via use-livecode < > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > wrote: > >> >>>

Re: [off]sublimeText update

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:28 AM Ralf Bitter via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > On 13. Mar 2019, at 15:17, Mike Kerner via use-livecode < > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > > The ST kluge works great for updating scripts live in > > LC, except when it doesn't,

Re: [off]sublimeText update

> On 13. Mar 2019, at 15:17, Mike Kerner via use-livecode > wrote: > > The ST kluge works great for updating scripts live in > LC, except when it doesn't, and I don't think we have a way to do it with > Atom, yet. There are definitely ways to do it in Atom too. Here is how I managed to sen

Re: [off]sublimeText update

Don't forget that you can iterate over the keys if you need them: repeat for each key tStack in tStacks or over the elements if you don't need the keys: repeat for each element V in tStacks On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 4:10 PM Mark Wieder via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > O

Re: [off]sublimeText update

On 3/18/19 3:50 PM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote: Nice little shortcut. I usually put the keys into a variable first so I can see what they are when debugging. I do too, but this was just a one-off proof of concept. -- Mark Wieder ahsoftw...@gmail.com

Re: [off]sublimeText update

Nice little shortcut. I usually put the keys into a variable first so I can see what they are when debugging. Bob S > On Mar 16, 2019, at 10:21 , Mark Wieder via use-livecode > wrote: > > repeat for each line tStack in the keys of tStacks ___

Re: [off]sublimeText update

On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:33 AM Mark Wieder via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > On 3/16/19 7:43 AM, AndyP via use-livecode wrote: > > > >> But I agree that Navigator having a crap-ton of script-only behaviors is > >> cumbersome in the IDE if you're showing IDE stacks. > > >

Re: [off]sublimeText update

On 3/16/19 9:33 AM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: It should be pretty easy to hack the PB to hide plugins when desired... If the stack name is among the keys of revIDEPlugins(), ignore it. Insert the following code before the call to itemise in command buildProjectView in stack "revProj

Re: [off]sublimeText update

On 3/16/19 7:43 AM, AndyP via use-livecode wrote: But I agree that Navigator having a crap-ton of script-only behaviors is cumbersome in the IDE if you're showing IDE stacks. At the moment we can hide plugins but only by prefixing the stack name with rev. It would be great if we could have an

Re: [off]sublimeText update

> But I agree that Navigator having a crap-ton of script-only behaviors is > cumbersome in the IDE if you're showing IDE stacks. At the moment we can hide plugins but only by prefixing the stack name with rev. It would be great if we could have another prefix for plugins so that they do not get

Re: [off]sublimeText update

One of the reasons (the only reason?) I don't do something like this with Navigator is that there are at least a few people that clone the Navigator repo directly. I'd rather have everyone (Except Brian!) using the same exact form of Navigator rather than some using the version with script-only sta

Re: [off]sublimeText update

On 3/14/19 9:53 AM, Brian Milby via use-livecode wrote: I noticed that the plugin was a single file and wondered how you did that.   When I convert Navigator, I create a single sub stack and map each behavior to a new button with the same name as the script only stack name.  I’ll need to read

Re: [off]sublimeText update

I noticed that the plugin was a single file and wondered how you did that.   When I convert Navigator, I create a single sub stack and map each behavior to a new button with the same name as the script only stack name.  I’ll need to read your script a little more closely to see what is happening.

Re: [off]sublimeText update

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:30 PM Brian Milby via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > One area where I prefer binary stacks is plugins. It seems cleaner to > keep the code self contained inside the IDE. I actually consolidate > Navigator to a single binary file on my systems

Re: [off]sublimeText update

I wrote an XML exporter about fifteen years ago. I don't think I have a copy of it anywhere, and of course it probably would break with all the changes since then. But it wasn't *that* complex; Navigator has built-in code to return a list of all the controls within a given group/card/stack, and sep

Re: [off]sublimeText update

My stack is a different take on the problem.  It allows the benefit of tracking the scripts in a VCS while retaining the convenience of a binary stack file.   It also allows easy editing of scripts outside of the IDE without moving to SOS.  I’m still not convinced that SOS use makes sense all of

Re: [off]sublimeText update

That's been mulled over before. It's a huge undertaking. Arrays in properties would have to be arrayEncoded of course, which makes putting it all in a flat text file extremely problematic. Where does the array data begin and end you see? An XML file would be better. Bob S > On Mar 13, 2019

Re: [off]sublimeText update

Navigator also has an exporter, and Monte wrote "Scriptifier", which is included in the LC bundle, for exporting scripts to SOS's. Once they're in SOS's, there's no reason to put them back in the stack, since you can edit them using the LC SE or in an external editor. I thought about writing some

Re: [off]sublimeText update

I have a tool that exports the scripts of a stack and can facilitate editing in any external editor.  I want to hook it up in Atom like ST, but have not figured out how to rewrite the module in JS.  ScriptTracker works by watching a directory for changes to the files.  The ST plugin works by sen

[off]sublimeText update

The new sublimeText update dropped this morning, and it's pretty sweet. It now has things like git status integration, which is very cool. It would be really cool if we could get better integration between external text editors and ST. The ST kluge works great for updating scripts live in LC, exce