Sublime Text 3's Clojure syntax highlighting often breaks on/after regular expressions. I see that Anthony Grimes noticed this on the Sublime Text Forum: http://sublimetext.userecho.com/topic/82983-clojure-regexes-are-not-parsed-properly/
This answer was suggested:
Inside Clojure.tmLanguage try changing
<string>source.regexp.oniguruma</string>
to
<string>#string_escape</string>
But where is Clojure.tmLanguage? After I make the change, do I just save it in place? (See Where to put .tmLanguage in sublime text 3?)
I see have this in my Sublime Text 3 directory:
$ tree -L 1
.
├── Cache
├── Index
├── Installed\ Packages
├── Local
└── Packages
Inside Cache I see Clojure/Clojure.tmLanguage.cache but that probably isn't right.
Update: I'm using Mac OS X 10.9.
Update: I'm looking over Where are .tmLanguage files stored for ST3
Update: There are other Clojure syntax issues detailed here, too: http://www.sublimetext.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14077
Update: I've tried uncompressing the Clojure.tmLanguage.cache file by renaming it to Clojure.tmLanguage.zip first. That was bizarre; I get an alternating and endless loop of .cpgz and .zip files as I try to uncompress them. See: discussions.apple.com/thread/1446784
If you're going to be changing items in the default packages in Sublime Text 3, I highly recommend installing PackageResourceViewer by #skuroda. It allows you to open, view, edit, and extract packages from their default storage location (which varies by operating system) and place them in Packages/PackageName, overriding the default.
Once you've installed the plugin, go to Preferences -> Package Settings -> PackageResourceViewer -> Settings - User and paste in the following:
{
"single_command": false
}
This just gives you some extra options in the Command Palette. Next, hit ⌘⇧P and type in prv to bring up the PackageResourceViewer options. Select Edit Package Resource and navigate to Clojure -> Clojure.tmLanguage. Do your search and replace, and save the file, which will now be located in Packages/Clojure/Clojure.tmLanguage in case you need to edit it again - you'll be able to open it like a normal file.
To answer the original question, on OS X the pristine .sublime-package files are located in /Applications/Sublime Text.app/Contents/MacOS/Packages. However, these files should never be modified directly, as a) you could easily break something, and b) they are overwritten upon upgrade, so any changes would be lost.
Good luck!
BTW, a little plug if you're using Clojure and would like some better syntax highlighting: I'm the maintainer of the Neon Color Scheme, and I just released a new version that includes more specific support for Clojure, aside from what was already there. My aim for the color scheme is to make as many languages as possible look as good as possible, taking advantage of as many scopes as I can in the .tmLanguage definition file. I just recently started learning Clojure, and the language definition is fairly rich, so there are a lot of opportunities for context-specific highlighting. Check it out, and please let me know what you think!
Related
I've been reading everywhere about the need to organize your R projects and also to use Rmarkdown.
I see an incoherence I can't solve.
Suppose I set for the following standard organization:
Project
data
raw-data
code
docs
out
reports
and also home of setwd().
Now I want to use Rmarkdown with my main project file called My_project.Rmd
I create it at the root project level, then I get at every knit rendition 2 directories created My_project_cache and My_project_files on to of every .hml file rendered that conflicts with the above structure.
This is very impractical.
I tried setting the options of output to avoid this, per this tip, but it fails on the cache directory, and I did not succeeded in setting Knit options to bypass it. And no-one seems to be bothered by this question making the solution look like a dead-end.
The other solution is to put My_project.Rmd directly in reports/ but it feels a little awkward and on top of that it breaks the above project structure by imposing ../ paths everywhere.
The third solution is to work with Rmd format, only at the end of a project, but this seems a little defeating the purpose of documenting everything neatly in the first place.
There may be a 4th solution using R Notebook feature, but it works until you decide to try to finalize your "final" document , which of course is never really final.
What am I missing here ?
For reference, I'm using RStudio on a Mac.
Does anyone know of a plugin where I can get the breadcrumbs of a file I am working on.
Lets say I am working on app/controllers/admin/crs/abc, So I can see this info at the top or start of the window.
I am using ember and due to pod structure its hard to know which file I am working as all of them have different folders but same names.
Simply edit your user preferences and add
"show_full_path": true
and the full path of the file will appear in Sublime's titlebar when the file is active.
Compare with the setting (OS X):
to without it:
I know this is an old question but still, I think this is an interesting Package that not many people know of.
On top of #mattdmo answer, you might even want to check the breadcrumbs for a nested structure (pretty much like you'd do in VS Code): just install Breadcrumbs for Sublime Text. Not as cool, but it works ok.
this question might have been asked before, but I could not find it.
I am on a Linux box. I have py app that runs from a folder called /avt. (example)
I did not write this code, and it has about 12 modules that go with it. I was the lucky engineer to inherit this mess.
this app imports other modules that live under this dir /avt/bin
I want to be able find my modules in the /bin dir no matter where the current working dir is. sometimes the app changes dir to some other sub folders to perform some file I/O. Then should return, but seems like sometimes it does not make it back, because the code will error out with "no such file or directory" error. so I want to test for working dir each time before I do any file I/O to the /bin dir.
As an example, I want to create files in /bin, and then later open those files and read data from them. How can I test to make sure my current working dir is always /avt? and if it is not, then ch.dir to it? Note: it also has to be portable code meaning if must run on any directory structure on any Linux machine.
I tried this code, but it is not very clean I think. Python is not my main language. Is this coding proper and will it work for this? forgive me I don't know how to format it for this forum.
Avtfolder = os.path.realpath(os.path.abspath(os.path.split(inspect.getfile( inspect.currentframe() ))[0]))
if Avtfolder not in sys.path:
sys.path.insert(0, Avtfolder)
if Avtfolder.__contains__('/avt'):
modfilespath = Avtfolder + '/bin'
print 'bin dir is ' + modfilespath
else:
print 'directory lost...'
#write some code here that changes to the root /avt dir
I have a few notes.
First, I'm afraid you are mixing up two problems (or I couldn't tell from the question which one you're facing). These problems are:
I/O to files that can reside in different directories on different machines
Importing Python modules used by your app that can also be in slightly different locations.
The title of the question and some of the text suggests you're dealing with problem 2, whereas references to I/O and "no such file or directory" error point to problem 1.
Those are, however, separate problems and are treated separately. I won't be able to give the exact recipes on both, but here are some suggestions:
For problem 1: I don't think it's a good idea to do some I/O, create files, etc. in the folder where the user installs the Python libraries. It's a folder for Python modules, not data. Also, if the library is installed via setup.py, using pip or easy_install (if it isn't the case now, that can change in the future) then the program will probably habe insufficient permissions to write there, unless invoked as root. And that's right. Create files somewhere else.
As to "how to track the directory changes" part: I must confess I don't quite understand what you mean. Why do you even using the concept of "current directory"? In my mind you should just have some variable such as write_path, data_path, etc. and the code would be
data = open(os.path.join(data_path, 'data.foo'))
dump = open(os.path.join(write_path, 'dump.bar'), 'w')
etc.
Why do you even care where are your libraries located? I don't think it's right, I'd change that. This inspect.currentframe() stuff smells like you really need to rethink the design of the library.
Now, what the location of the libraries matters for is Problem 2. But again, the absolute path shouldn't matter (if it does, change that!). You only need all the modules to be inside one folder (or its subfolders). If they are in the same folder, you're good. import foo will just work. If some are in subfolders, those subfolders should have a file named __init__.py in them, and then they will be seen as modules by Python interpreter, so you'll be able to do from foo import bar, where foo is a subfolder with __init__.py and bar.py in it.
So, try to rewrite it so that you don't depend on where the .py files are. You really shouldn't need to use inspect there at all. On another note, don't use special methods like __contains__ directly unless you really need to. if '/avt' in Avtfolder will do the same.
I was going to create the C++ IDE Vim extendable plugin. It is not a problem to make one which will satisfy my own needs.
This plugin was going to work with workspaces, projects and its dependencies.
This is for unix like system with gcc as c++ compiler.
So my question is what is the most important things you'd need from an IDE? Please take in account that this is Vim, where almost all, almost, is possible.
Several questions:
How often do you manage different workspaces with projects inside them and their relationships between them? What is the most annoying things in this process.
Is is necessary to recreate "project" from the Makefile?
Thanks.
Reason to create this plugin:
With a bunch of plugins and self written ones we can simulate most of things. It is ok when we work on a one big "infinitive" project.
Good when we already have a makefile or jam file. Bad when we have to create our owns, mostly by copy and paste existing.
All ctags and cscope related things have to know about list of a real project files. And we create such ones. This <project#get_list_of_files()> and many similar could be a good project api function to cooperate with an existing and the future plugins.
Cooperation with an existing makefiles can help to find out the list of the real project files and the executable name.
With plugin system inside the plugin there can be different project templates.
Above are some reasons why I will start the job. I'd like to hear your one.
There are multiple problems. Most of them are already solved by independent and generic plugins.
Regarding the definition of what is a project.
Given a set of files in a same directory, each file can be the unique file of a project -- I always have a tests/ directory where I host pet projects, or where I test the behaviour of the compiler. On the opposite, the files from a set of directories can be part of a same and very big project.
In the end, what really defines a project is a (leaf) "makefile" -- And why restrict ourselves to makefiles, what about scons, autotools, ant, (b)jam, aap? And BTW, Sun-Makefiles or GNU-Makefiles ?
Moreover, I don't see any point in having vim know the exact files in the current project. And even so, the well known project.vim plugin already does the job. Personally I use a local_vimrc plugin (I'm maintaining one, and I've seen two others on SF). With this plugin, I just have to drop a _vimrc_local.vim file in a directory, and what is defined in it (:mappings, :functions, variables, :commands, :settings, ...) will apply to each file under the directory -- I work on a big project having a dozen of subcomponents, each component live in its own directory, has its own makefile (not even named Makefile, nor with a name of the directory)
Regarding C++ code understanding
Every time we want to do something complex (refactorings like rename-function, rename-variable, generate-switch-from-current-variable-which-is-an-enum, ...), we need vim to have an understanding of C++. Most of the existing plugins rely on ctags. Unfortunately, ctags comprehension of C++ is quite limited -- I have already written a few advanced things, but I'm often stopped by the poor information provided by ctags. cscope is no better. Eventually, I think we will have to integrate an advanced tool like elsa/pork/ionk/deshydrata/....
NB: That's where, now, I concentrate most of my efforts.
Regarding Doxygen
I don't known how difficult it is to jump to the doxygen definition associated to a current token. The first difficulty is to understand what the cursor is on (I guess omnicppcomplete has already done a lot of work in this direction). The second difficulty will be to understand how doxygen generate the page name for each symbol from the code.
Opening vim at the right line of code from a doxygen page should be simple with a greasemonkey plugin.
Regarding the debugger
There is the pyclewn project for those that run vim under linux, and with gdb as debugger. Unfortunately, it does not support other debuggers like dbx.
Responses to other requirements:
When I run or debug my compiled program, I'd like the option of having a dialog pop up which asks me for the command line parameters. It should remember the last 20 or so parameters I used for the project. I do not want to have to edit the project properties for this.
My BuildToolsWrapper plugin has a g:BTW_run_parameters option (easily overridden with project/local_vimrc solutions). Adding a mapping to ask the arguments to use is really simple. (see :h inputdialog())
work with source control system
There already exist several plugins addressing this issue. This has nothing to do with C++, and it must not be addressed by a C++ suite.
debugger
source code navigation tools (now I am using http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1638 plugin and ctags)
compile lib/project/one source file from ide
navigation by files in project
work with source control system
easy acces to file changes history
rename file/variable/method functions
easy access to c++ help
easy change project settings (Makefiles, jam, etc)
fast autocomplette for paths/variables/methods/parameters
smart identation for new scopes (also it will be good thing if developer will have posibility to setup identation rules)
highlighting incorrect by code convenstion identation (tabs instead spaces, spaces after ";", spaces near "(" or ")", etc)
reformating selected block by convenstion
Things I'd like in an IDE that the ones I use don't provide:
When I run or debug my compiled program, I'd like the option of having a dialog pop up which asks me for the command line parameters. It should remember the last 20 or so parameters I used for the project. I do not want to have to edit the project properties for this.
A "Tools" menu that is configurable on a per-project basis
Ability to rejig the keyboard mappings for every possible command.
Ability to produce lists of project configurations in text form
Intelligent floating (not docked) windows for debugger etc. that pop up only when I need them, stay on top and then disappear when no longer needed.
Built-in code metrics analysis so I get a list of the most complex functions in the project and can click on them to jump to the code
Built-in support for Doxygen or similar so I can click in a Doxygen document and go directly to code. Sjould also reverse navigate from code to Doxygen.
No doubt someone will now say Eclipse can do this or that, but it's too slow and bloated for me.
Adding to Neil's answer:
integration with gdb as in emacs. I know of clewn, but I don't like that I have to restart vim to restart the debugger. With clewn, vim is integrated into the debugger, but not the other way around.
Not sure if you are developing on Windows, but if you are I suggest you check out Viemu. It is a pretty good VIM extension for Visual Studio. I really like Visual Studio as an IDE (although I still think VC6 is hard to beat), so a Vim extension for VS was perfect for me. Features that I would prefer worked better in a Vim IDE are:
The Macro Recording is a bit error prone, especially with indentation. I find I can easily and often record macros in Vim while I am editing code (eg. taking an enum defn from a header and cranking out a corresponding switch statement), but found that Viemu is a bit flakey in that deptartment.
The VIM code completion picks up words in the current buffer where Viemu hooks into the VS code completion stuff. This means if I have just created a method name and I want to ctrl ] to auto complete, Vim will pick it up, but Viemu won't.
For me, it's just down to the necessities
nice integration with ctags, so you can do jump to definition
intelligent completion, that also give you the function prototype
easy way to switch between code and headers
interactive debugging with breaakpoints, but maybe
maybe folding
extra bonus points for refactoring tools like rename or extract method
I'd say stay away from defining projects - just treat the entire file branch as part of the "project" and let users have a settings file to override that default
99% of the difference in speed I see between IDE and vim users is code lookup and navigation. You need to be able to grep your source tree for a phrase (or intelligently look for the right symbol using ctags), show all the hits, and switch to that file in like two or three keystrokes.
All the other crap like repository navigation or interactive debugging is nice, but there are other ways to solve those problems. I'd say drop the interactive debugging even. Just focus on what makes IDEs good editors - have a "big picture" view of your project, instead of single file.
In fact, are there any plugins for vim that already achieve this?
I have a source code of about 500 files in about 10 directories. I need to refactor the directory structure - this includes changing the directory hierarchy or renaming some directories.
I am using svn version control. There are two ways to refactor: one preserving svn history (using svn move command) and the other without preserving. I think refactoring preserving svn history is a lot easier using eclipse CDT and SVN plugin (visual studio does not fit at all for directory restructuring).
But right now since the code is not released, we have the option to not preserve history.
Still there remains the task of changing the include directives of header files wherever they are included. I am thinking of writing a small script using python - receives a map from current filename to new filename, and makes the rename wherever needed (using something like sed). Has anyone done this kind of directory refactoring? Do you know of good related tools?
If you're having to rewrite the #includes to do this, you did it wrong. Change all your #includes to use a very simple directory structure, at mot two levels deep and only using a second level to organize around architecture or OS dependencies (like sys/types.h).
Then change your make files to use -I include paths.
Voila. You'll never have to hack the code again for this, and compiles will blow up instantly if something goes wrong.
As far as the history part, I personally find it easier to make a clean start when doing this sort of thing; archive the old one, make a new repository v2, go from there. The counterargument is when there is a whole lot of history of changes, or lots of open issues against the existing code.
Oh, and you do have good tests, and you're not doing this with a release coming right up, right?
I would preserve the history, even if it takes a small amount of extra time. There's a lot of value in being able to read through commit logs and understand why function X is written in a weird way, or that this really is an off-by-one error because it was written by Oliver, who always gets that wrong.
The argument against preserving the history can be made for the following users:
your code might have embarrassing things, like profanity and fighting among developers
you don't care about the commit history of your code, because it's not going to change or be maintained in the future
I did some directory refactoring like this last year on our code base. If your code is reasonable structured at the beginning, you can do about 75-90% of the work using scripts written in your language of choice (I used Perl). In my case, we were moving from set of files all in one big directory, to a series of nested directories depending on namespaces. So, a file that declared the class protocols::serialization::SerializerBase was located in src/protocols/serialization/SerializerBase. The mapping from the old name to the new name was trivial, so that doing a find and replace on #includes in every source file in the tree was trivial, although it was a big change. There were a couple of weird edge cases that we had to fix by hand, but that seemed a lot better than either having to do everything by hand or having to write our own C++ parser.
Hacking up a shell script to do the svn moves is trivial. In tcsh it's foreach F ( $FILES ) ... end to adjust a set of files. Perl & Python offer better utility.
It really is worth saving the history. Especially when trying to track down some exotic bug. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, or some such junk...
As for altering all the files... There was a similar question just the other day over at:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/573430/
c-include-header-path-change-windows-to-linux/573531#573531