From: iainf@spider.com (Iain A F Fleming) Newsgroups: comp.editors,comp.sys.transputer Subject: Re: Folding editors Date: 16 Nov 1998 11:01:19 +0000 Organization: Spider Software Ltd Sender: iainf@belhaven.spider.com Distribution: inet Message-Id: <6r90hb7vgg.fsf@belhaven.spider.com> References: <36374B57.168B9492@pact.srf.ac.uk> <71aj0c$oc$1@fangorn.moria.de> <6r1znq7264.fsf@belhaven.spider.com> <3639BEFD.2CC25E3C@esgem.com> <6r4ssm59ay.fsf@belhaven.spider.com> <6rhfwi4ee6.fsf@belhaven.spider.com> <363EEB84.5CAD538B@roke.co.uk> <6rvhkw20nk.fsf@belhaven.spider.com> <364CBB49.ABE8624B@oucs.ox.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: A E Lawrence's message of Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:05:45 +0000 Xref: ukc comp.editors:32260 comp.sys.transputer:8924 The entity calling itself A E Lawrence wrote: > > Iain A F Fleming wrote: > > > > When bereft of folds, such functions are inscrutable. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > This surely is *exactly* the point. No-one should view the text without > a full folding editor. If a program is well structured and documented > by virtue of its folded structure, why should there be an objection per > se to "loops within loops within conditionals". Ridiculously high complexity metrics, non-ameanble to full coverage testing, hindering of compiler optimistion. > The folding may well make this comprehensible, efficient, and provably > correct. In the presnece of "loops within loops within conditionals"? Unlikely. -- Iain A F Fleming http://www.spider.com/ Spider Sofware Ltd Leith Scotland +44.131.475.7045