Re: Editor: Folding sections?

[Rolf-Werner Eilert <rwe-sse@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Am 17.06.24 um 13:24 schrieb Benoît Minisini:
> Le 17/06/2024 à 09:13, Rolf-Werner Eilert a écrit :
> > Am 16.06.24 um 01:13 schrieb KKing:
> > > Re: Editor: Folding sections?
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > I resorted to using Geany and even notepad++ for some work I had to 
> > > do on some very large projects.
> > >
> > > This was Benoit's response to my enquiry in 2019
> > > > Le 09/09/2019 à 18:50, KKing a écrit :
> > > > > Is there support for regions and within the IDE code folding?
> > > > >
> > > > > If not is it on a wishlist / roadmap ?
> > > > >
> > > > > K.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No and no.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Benoît Minisini 
> > >
> > > Maybe we can find a GSOC candidate :---?
> > >
> > > K.
> >
> > As to folding code: As far as I know (never checked the sources), the 
> > IDE and the editor is written in Gambas. If so, it should be 
> > relatively easy to re-use the existing folding procedures, combine it 
> > with comment recognition and add section folding to it.
> >
> > I have been thinking this over, and if you guys could point me to the 
> > entry points for procedure folding and comments, I will take a look at 
> > it. At least I could give it a try...
> >
> > Regards
> > Rolf
>
> (1) The TextEditor aims at being syntax highlighting agnostic, so 
> knowing if a piece of text (it's not necessary full lines) can be 
> collapsed or expanded should be described by the syntax highlighting file.

This is roundabout what I was thinking of.

> (2) As for the folding implementation code by itself, you should write 
> it indepently of the current code. It should be a black box code the 
> editor tells to fold / unfold between two cursor positions, and that 
> tells the editor the conversion between editor positions and visible 
> positions, folding taken into account.

Oh yes, editor positions... But there should be such code for folding 
subs and functions. So there is kinda example code.


> You should work on (2), and let me handle (1) later. But it's not an 
> easy task. This is why I understood "no / no".

Thank you for the warning :) Soon I will be in holidays, maybe I'll find 
some time to look into it then...

Regards
Rolf