gvwilson@nevex.com wrote: > > 'S funny --- my non-programmer friends can't figure out why any sane > person would use a glorified glass TTY like emacs... or why they should > have to, just to program... I just think that someone's going to do this > for some language, some time soon, and I'd rather Python be in the lead > than play catch-up. Your goal is worth pursuing but I agree with the others that the syntax change is not the right way. It _is_ possible to teach XMetaL to edit Python programs -- structurally -- just as it does XML. What you do is hook into the macro engine (which already supports Python) and use the Python tokenizer to build a parse tree. You copy that into a DOM using the same elements and attributes you would use if you were doing some kind of batch conversion. Then on "save" you reverse the process. Implementation time: ~3 days. The XMetaL competitor, Documentor has an API specifically designed to make this sort of thing easy. Making either of them into a friendly programmer's editor is a much larger task. I think this is where the majority of the R&D should occur, not at the syntax level. If one invents a fundamentally better way of working with the structures behind Python code, then it would be relatively easy to write code that maps that to today's Python syntax. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself Out of timber so crooked as that which man is made nothing entirely straight can be built. - Immanuel Kant
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4