[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC] improve nano's interface toward external tools
From: |
Benno Schulenberg |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC] improve nano's interface toward external tools |
Date: |
Mon, 4 Jan 2021 14:06:07 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 |
Op 03-01-2021 om 02:56 schreef Saagar Jha:
> [...] but there are still places where it seems like it is missing some
> things that other editors have had for quite a long time.
Nano never looked at other editors. For the longest of times nano's only
goal was to be a copy of Pico -- with a few improvements here and there.
This has changed only since version 4.0, two years ago.
> Extensions points, in general, seem perfect for me for an editor like nano.
> Some of the things I mentioned already serve as those and they are pretty
> powerful for the amount of code that went into them [...]
The linter required a horrible amount of code. I wish Chris had never
added it. But I didn't have the heart to kill it.
> One could imagine nano adding the ability to autocomplete [...]
"One" maybe, but I certainly can't imagine that: for every keystroke run
code to try and find the things that could complete the current fragment
and present them onscreen... What a horrible waste of CPU cycles! For me
the attraction of nano is not just its small binary size but also that it
uses the CPU sparingly.
> The beauty of this approach is that the amount of code that would actually
> have to go into nano is non-trivial but not huge, and then you can literally
> start offloading features to people who are interested in it, [...]
Sure, sounds good. If you have a specific idea for an extension point
and can give two different examples of how this point could be used by
an external script, then let's hear it.
Benno
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature