Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums / MathGroup Archive
-----

MathGroup Archive 2009

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Viewing packages in mathematica

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg102776] Re: Viewing packages in mathematica
  • From: David Reiss <dbreiss at gmail.com>
  • Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 06:32:35 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <h6tv6v$drb$1@smc.vnet.net> <h7375b$b64$1@smc.vnet.net>

Take a look at the code that I posted at

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/browse_thread=
/thread/fc042346d1fc78fd

--David




On Aug 26, 7:43 am, Yves Klett <yves.kl... at googlemail.com> wrote:
> John,
>
> if linewrapping is just a rendering option in the editor, why not let
> the user decide if he likes it or not? If no permanent changes were made
> to the m-file itself, there should be no harm done. Enabling
> line-wrapping in any old editor usually does not change the file as such.=
..
>
> The non-existent linewrapping for "Code" cells makes editing complex
> long cells quite painful and seems for my taste something that would
> people put off using the otherwise very nice new package editing
> features in the frontend.
>
> As for workbench, surely there is an option there to enable
> line-wrapping (dunno, though)?
>
> Regards,
> Yves
>
> John Fultz schrieb:
>
>
>
> > I should make it clear that none of your reasons apply to the package
> > editor in the Mathematica front end (available by opening a package
> > file or through the menu item File->New->Package).  You can edit
> > packages directly using that editor with all of the formatting, syntax
> > coloring, cell types and grouping on package files which are completely
> > interchangeable with Workbench or any other text editor you might favor
> > for working with package files.
>
> > There are a couple of things that you don't get which you would get
> > with regular notebooks.  As the original post points out, you don't g=
et
> > line-wrapping in Code cells.  This was a deliberate design decision o=
n
> > our part.  We wanted to create a package editor which would be comple=
tely
> > interchangeable with Workbench and other systems.  Therefore, two of =
the
> > design goals were to limit the automatic formatting changes introduced =
by
> > the front end when displaying/editing a package file, and to minimize t=
he
> > markup introduced into the package file by the front end when encoding
> > cell group structure, cell styles, etc.
>
> > I personally think we've struck a pretty good balance, although there
> > are a few suggestions for features which remain to be implemented.
> > Others on this forum (and perhaps even within Wolfram) may disagree,
> > and that's fine.  There are many options for editing package files.
> > Some people are very happy with Workbench, some with their own text
> > editors, some with the FE's package editor, and some with notebooks
> > auto-saved as packages.  All will continue to be supported for as far
> > in the future as I can predict.
>
> > Sincerely,
>
> > John Fultz
> > jfu... at wolfram.com
> > User Interface Group
> > Wolfram Research, Inc.
>
> > On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 05:32:59 -0400 (EDT), David Park wrote:
> >> I agree with you that I would much prefer to have Mathematica notebook=
s as
> >> the primary source for package code. The reasons are:
>
> >> 1) You get the automatic formatting.
> >> 2) You get syntax coloring.
> >> 3) You can include Text cells for notes on the code.
> >> 4) You can use sectional grouping so you don't have just one long scro=
ll.
> >> 5) You're not completely committed to Workbench.
>
> >> One of the major problem with creating .m files in Workbench is that i=
f
> >> you Import the code from a regular existing package then the .m code d=
oes
> >> not line wrap. This makes it very difficult to read and to modify.
> >> However, if you copy and paste code from an existing notebook then it
> >> does line wrap.
>
> >> Making .m files the primary source of package definitions is a signifi=
cant
> >> obstacle to users who would prefer to stay closer to mathematics than =
to
> >> computer programming.
>
> >> It would be nice if Workbench included a mechanism similar to the auto
> >> generated package mechanism that would generate line wrapping .m files=


  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: Viewing packages in mathematica
  • Next by Date: Re: Re: Viewing packages in mathematica
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Viewing packages in mathematica
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Viewing packages in mathematica