h a l f b a k e r yLike gliding backwards through porridge.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Code Block Namer
Text Editor's feature to name blocks of code by selecting it, and interactively naming the sections of code with one's own words, which would automatically produce a list of names in a separate window or file, organized structurally identical to the original pieces of code in the program. | |
(The feature could be useful for reading computer programs, and analysing other types of texts.)
Halfbakery: Roof Irrigation Cooler
Roof_20Irrigation_20Cooler
A nostalgic style of writing an idea in the summary. [Inyuki, Oct 25 2010]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
This comes very close to sourcecode navigation features
that
are standard in most editor/IDEs. Could you describe in
more detail how it differs from current technology? |
|
| |
As for "other types of texts," the existing technology's not
as good. This is well-recognized, but the solutions aren't
great. |
|
| |
In most IDEs the code is automatically organized into classes, functions, and other procedural units. However, sometimes a block of code consists of several such units, or have several statements within one line. |
|
| |
As I imagine, once marked code with Code Block Namer, the code background could also change into different colors indicating that the portions of code have different naming. |
|
| |
If there is already such thing done somewhere, I am not yet aware of it. |
|
| |
Well, it makes sense, but it creates structure peculiar to
the editor, and not part of the programming language.
Most languages' "procedural units" are not flat, but allow
for the sort of nesting you describe, and IDEs can
recognize, navigate, and display that structure. The major
advantage of named code blocks seems to be that it's
lightweight, avoiding the need to obsessively structure
code at the outset. |
|
| |
I wouldn't use the thing myself: very
structured code almost always pays off for me, while
quick'n'dirty almost always has meant time spent later,
refactoring. This might be appropriate to a different
coding style, or to a language very tightly integrated with
its editor (maybe C#?). [ ] |
|
| |
Oddly, this might be helpful in Assembly langiage. |
|
| |
Presuming, of course, that anyone else still programs in raw Assembler. |
|
| |
"We are the Borg, and we write programs in assembler" |
|
| |
<Waits for other Programmers Anonymous members to respond> |
|
| |
Well, I've been handed a class to teach that involves
microcontrollers... And the language of choice is assembler
. So I'll bun anything that sounds like a nice coding tool. |
|
| |
Why is the idea summary longer than the actual idea? |
|
| |
[DrBob], I felt nostalgic about [kaana] who disappeared for good after writing only one idea in 2001, entirely in the summary. |
|
| |