From noreply at sourceforge.net Wed Oct 3 01:40:46 2012 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:40:46 -0700 Subject: [Python-mode] [ python-mode-Bugs-3563825 ] Feature: Display class / function name in status bar. Message-ID: <3XWcLS3TDqzNmP@mail.python.org> Bugs item #3563825, was opened at 2012-08-31 13:47 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nejucomo You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=581349&aid=3563825&group_id=86916 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open >Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nefarious CodeMonkey, Jr. (nejucomo) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Feature: Display class / function name in status bar. Initial Comment: It would be helpful for my use case if I could look at the same location in the statusbar to see which class and method the point is currently in. When working on a class hierarchy with many subclass method implementations, sometimes it's easy to forget which class's version of the method I'm looking at. Also, for very long functions, sometimes I forget which function I'm viewing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Nefarious CodeMonkey, Jr. (nejucomo) Date: 2012-10-02 16:40 Message: which-function-mode does exactly what I want, so I'm closing this as "works-for-me". Thanks fragged! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Mike Kazantsev (fraggod) Date: 2012-08-31 18:57 Message: Maybe (more generic than just python) which-function-mode will do what you want? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=581349&aid=3563825&group_id=86916 From andreas.roehler at online.de Wed Oct 10 12:27:03 2012 From: andreas.roehler at online.de (=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_R=F6hler?=) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:27:03 +0200 Subject: [Python-mode] common mistakes Message-ID: <50754D77.3050404@online.de> Hi all, coming across a site which complains the way and state of Emacs python-mode developing http://synker.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/emacs-as-a-python-ide/ let me take the occassion to address some issues of maybe general interest. Certainly python-mode at it's present state has it's limits and can be done much better. OTOH if you consider other editors, they have shortcomings too, albeit in maybe different areas. So while it can be done better, the result seems is not so bad at all in comparison. Complaining the multitute of offerings, which requires some choice, is a common mistake. Freedom means choice and provokes it. With resp. to the mentioned so called "apparent bitterness" and it's outcoming, please compare the capabilities of python-modes with others, with Bash or Perl for example. Without question we can be more polite and nice with each other. But don't let you make that fear a strive or even criminalise disput. We know that creativity often is linked to a kind of unhappy behavior. We should simply accept that and go on, enjoing the fruit even from adorned crowns :) BTW writing a python-mode IMHO meets some extra difficulties due to Pythons use of indent as delimiter - what's nice to look and use introduces some complexity OTOH. So after all, consider python-modes rather a story of success than a failure. IMHO we should go on, maybe still more outspokenly welcome diversity than it's common now. For me it's a pleasure to look into alternative proceedings delivered by others. It's a source of inspiration, of joy. Andreas From andreas.roehler at online.de Fri Oct 19 07:18:03 2012 From: andreas.roehler at online.de (=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_R=F6hler?=) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:18:03 +0200 Subject: [Python-mode] buffer-named-shells? Message-ID: <5080E28B.3030109@online.de> Hi Barry, hi all, reflecting the question, how to proceed when executing a buffer which might result in a time-consuming run. For now starting it in a dedicated process resp. shell is the solution. These dedicated shell names however are machine-generated and hard to read resp. to remember. Possible solutions: - running a shell which is named after the buffer. - combine the buffer-name with the dedicated name. Opinions? Cheers, Andreas From barry at python.org Fri Oct 19 17:16:52 2012 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:16:52 -0400 Subject: [Python-mode] buffer-named-shells? In-Reply-To: <5080E28B.3030109@online.de> References: <5080E28B.3030109@online.de> Message-ID: <20121019111652.033fe276@resist.wooz.org> On Oct 19, 2012, at 07:18 AM, Andreas R?hler wrote: >reflecting the question, how to proceed when executing a buffer which might >result in a time-consuming run. > >For now starting it in a dedicated process resp. shell is the solution. >These dedicated shell names however are machine-generated and hard to read >resp. to remember. > >Possible solutions: > >- running a shell which is named after the buffer. >- combine the buffer-name with the dedicated name. > >Opinions? None from me. Maybe you could ask on the emacs-devel list for input. -Barry