World: r3wp

I think many editors aren't focusing on editing... they are more 
interested in project management or fancy highlighting/folding/whatever, 
rather than really good and responsive editing, proper indenting 
and block-editing.

I miss the ability to collapse sections of code in CE.

If an editor lags all the time, just by typing simple code, it almost 
makes me knock the monitor off the table

do I need more things ? If the more things means to be restricted 
by the IDE in my creativity like Visual Studio .NET I say no ;)

(smalltalks browser can collect stuff like "show me all callers of 
this", all methods of a name in whichever object etc. i gues Carl 
refered to that?)

shadwolf: please no, nothing like VS. :-)

Henrik: I agree regarding editing. Very few editors get it right.

But, I also do not want to hunt around in my code files to find the 
different sections.

Volker, in Smalltalk, I liked in part the fact that the editor "browser" 
kept things better organized.

Of course, there were other editors too... on Lisp machines, etc.

I like the editor the way it is now. I don't think anything should 
be put in it that would slow it down other than proper indenting.

For testing code snippets that are a little too big for the console, 
it's brilliant.


Alternatively, provide a bigger version of the editor through the 
desktop?

i used smalltalk only a little bit. what i like is 1) it is organized, 
yes. 2) i can easily find something. in a way everything is "hyperlinked" 
(you click on some name and it shows you the definitions.). modern 
big ides can that to, but somehow it works better in smalltalk.

A few of my personal favorite features though are type-ahead-find 
and "find all in one file", "search across files". I guess it wouldn't 
be hard to parse the file to list all functions, would it? Oh, and 
a line numbering thingy too :-) I don't think that would slow it 
down too much.

a least a list of context / fonction global vars for a script could 
be good ;)

i like that editor too. but when we want ide too, the gui-ide has 
to deal somehow with the text in the editor. and currently focus 
gets lost and selection and such.

Henrik: yes, Viewtop editor is fine for that. Small and simple. Perhaps 
a few more features, but not a lot.

I was actually referring to IDE.

well the better level of control of your script content is the text 
...  I fear using IDE will make us loose the optimisation and tiny 
size of rebol script ...

Back 4 or 5 years ago, the Dylan folks wanted to make their IDE work 
for REBOL. I heard it was good.

Last year on first dev Con I present RADIS an intent of IDE for REBOL 
but since this intent the project was abandonned ...

the output code mayde by  RADIS was ugly ... but the idea is good 
until we don't have a big team dadicated to build this kind of evy 
integrated tool I think spending times on it is not usefull :)

script-size - Carls layout.r does a good job with generating sourcecode 
IMHO.

IMHO good looking sourcecode is very important. something which can 
be changed in text-form too.

What I am thinking of for an IDE starts very simple:

IDE for REBOL must be open for example in the Layout designer I want 
to be able to choose betwin comon Vid or a sub widget library like 
RebGUI for example ;)

1) code text editor with the usual features (like list of modules 
to click on)

file -> module?

2) trace/step thru code and see it in editor (important to non-REBOLers 
who are considering REBOL)

3) Breakpoints, watchpoints, etc.

in REBOL we can have 3 levels Files, Context and function ;)

Your jobs :)

4) Add a few other tools like layout, etc. But not make it complicated.

File <> module, but it can in many cases.

tracing would need backlinks to sourcecode? or just work on molded 
code?

Oh no! What is this conversation doing in AGG group!?

We sure ruin the group system, don't we?

the IDE will interger a AGG draw editor lol ;)

off topic question - in Rebol you have contexts in which words are 
hidden.  In forth you have vocabularies in which you define your 
lexicons.  But in forth it is much easier to switch to using a different 
vocabulary by changing the current vocabulary.  In Rebol you have 
to specify the context to use a word from within that context.  Would 
it make sense to implement such a feature in Rebol?

If you seek for a link betwin this conversation and this group topic 
 ;)

we don't have an IDE or View Editor group...

Oops. you said change group, so i followed the next group going red 
*blush*

Same for me  ...

Graham: that's what REBOL Modules would do.  Modules each keep separate 
symbol tables (not just context tables).

Rebol modules ??

http://www.rebol.net/article/0144.html

so are rebol modules reconsidered?

So, modules would be like forth vocabularies ?

Not exactly.

Forth vocabularies are heaps of word definitions (code and data).

I meant in use.