RE: [FR-devel] Not to create more work...but...

[Rich Kilmer]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Gilles Filippini
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 4:29 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [FR-devel] Not to create more work...but...
> 
> 
> Laurent Julliard wrote:
> > 
> > Rich Kilmer wrote:
> > > The scintilla Ruby API that we are using is a bit old.  The one 
> > > compiled into FXRuby is the newest (1.49).  There is a file named 
> > > scintilla.iface which contains an abstract definition of the 
> > > scintilla functions, etc. Last fall (before starting FreeRIDE) I 
> > > wrote the  parser/generator that generates the Scintilla 
> module from 
> > > the .iface.  There are additional constructs that have been added 
> > > since then that are now not accounted for.
> > >
> > > It seems that the thing is working for us, but it may be 
> prudent to 
> > > take some time to bring this up to date. I am spending 
> the next few 
> > > days (actually nights ;-) on the debugger.  Already made some 
> > > progress, and will continue.  Assuming we get that functional, I 
> > > think I will switch to Scintilla since its one of the 
> most important 
> > > things we have in the IDE ;-)  I think we need this up to date 
> > > before release.
> > >
> > 
> > Rich,
> > 
> > FYI I tried to switch to the stock FXRuby scintilla.rb myself a few 
> > months ago. This file is also generated automatically from 
> the .iface 
> > file and like I thought it would be a much better idea to really on 
> > the file delivered by FXRuby.
> > 
> > However I remember that I ended up aligning our FR 
> > scintilla_wrapper.rb file rather than adopting the stock 
> scintilla.rb 
> > becasue there was many little things that were different in the FR 
> > file (e.g. some additional processing on return values to make them 
> > more "ruby", method names different,etc.)
> > 
> > So I can look into this if you want but I don't know what to do:
> > 
> > a) switch to the stock FXRuby scintilla.rb file?
> > b) align once again our scintilla_wrapper.rb file with fxscintilla 
> > 1.49?
> > 
> > Laurent
> 
> The scintilla.rb provided with FXRuby is generated from 
> scintilla.iface using a ruby script: iface.rb. I first wrote 
> this script which is now maintained by Lyle Johnson in the 
> FXRuby CVS repository. If you end up deciding the FXRuby's 
> scintilla.rb is not appropriate for FreeRIDE, I think we 
> should work on the iface.rb script so that is suits our needs 
> instead of hand working on scintilla_wrapper.rb.
> 
> _gilles.
> 
> 

...and I wrote a generator script that is in FreeRIDE last fall (prior
to FXScintilla).  That is what we use right now.  Mine takes into
account things like boolean conversion (which yours does as well),
method naming "the ruby way" (i.e. methods that return boolean end in ?)
and single pass return of text.  I ported the scintilla setup code
(based on paramaterized .properties) from SciTE and built the higher
level constructs like Colours, Styles, etc.  I also wrote  a higher
level API on top of this and a basic autoindent capability (based on
Ruby syntax).  Since FreeRIDE is right now the major user of the
Scintilla control under FXRuby we should likely take this on and supply
it to Lyle.  

I don't want to duplicate effort.  Laurent...do you want to do this?
What I had said in my original message was there are new constructs
(enum, etc) that are not handled in my code and may be able to built
into some type of Ruby structure (inner module/class).  Anyway, let me
know what you want to do.

Its interesting.  Its this work on wrapping Scintilla that convinced
Curt that a Ruby IDE was possible :-)

Thanks,

-rich