syntax highlighting (was utf8, macos x, and fmt)
- From: "John C. Lamoreaux" <jclam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: wilyfans@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 23:43:51 -0500
On Fri, 9 May 2003 09:12:09 +0100, spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> 3. Syntax highlighting. I'd be curious to hear what others
>>> think on the subject. I am surprised how much I miss it when
>>> I've got a chapter with 200 small footnotes.
>>
>> I used to be very fond of syntax highlighting, then one day I
>> found myself allergic to it. Now I can't stand it. But then, I
>> mostly work with C source code.... I can see how it would be
>> useful for text markup :)
>
> I am currently writing a 200+ page thesis in Latex using wily;
> it's not hard to navigate if you are strict with yourself, using
> multiple files and a strict indentation policy. It's a bit like
> writing C....
>
...
> As for footnotes, I find them very hard to read in latex src; I
> think that syntax highlighting would help, but probably not much.
Multiple source files certainly do help, and using wily makes it very
painless to manipulate those files. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a
more effective way to do so.
As for footnotes, I've found that syntax highlighting does help, though
its usefulness lessens as the number of footnotes and their length
grows. Even so, for me, syntax highlighting does help to keep the main
text
from getting lost on the page.
Please forgive me for bringing up a topic that has already been
discussed here. I would like better to understand the philosophy
behind wily, however. As I've followed the list, I've gathered that
wily is by and large intended to be a feature-by-feature clone of acme,
to the extent that this is possible on Unix. I'm still not sure,
however, whether this effectively means that unless Rob and company
decide to add some new functionality (e.g., syntax highlighting) to
acme there is reticence to add such to wily.
Best,
John
Other related posts:
