Christian Couder chcouder at
Fri Jun 2 21:28:26 UTC 2000

Ralf Funken wrote:

> Am Fre, 02 Jun 2000 schrieben Sie:

> > I agree that KVim will probably be nice to have, but we could perhaps have both
> > KVim and KWrite.
> > If we just wait without trying to have a nice KWrite that fits our needs, we will
> > anyway disapoint some people who prefer KWrite.

> Well, 'wait' wasn't the right word here. What I meant to say is that we shouldn't
> focus on KWrite. It's a fact programmers have different needs than others. KWrite
> is a nice editor, but it lacks some of the key features a programmer usually
> likes to have. E.g. it doesn't know anything about where to place closing
> brackets, it has no idea about keyword completion ... things like that. I can't
> imagine this will be in KWrite anytime, because usually you simply don't need
> it. Some people asked for macros, vim already knows scripts for this task. Syntax
> highlighting is configured via external files. I wanted to add highlighting for
> sgml to KDevelop some time ago, but I gave up because it's simply not acceptable
> having to hack the editors code only to tell him about certain keywords.

Yes, KWrite is quite difficult to work on and it lacks many usefull features.
I even ranted a few times about the obfuscation of its code. And I also nearly started
a flame war with Jochen Wilhelmy about the way bookmark and breakpoints should be
implemented in KWrite.

But it is still possible to improve it (I just commited the Comment/Uncomment feature
and now it should work for all the languages that kwrite supports), and we already
build some improvements on it and connected it with KDevelop, so we know that it is
not so much work to port our improvements and to make it work with KDevelop even
throught a kpart interface.

If no one objects, I will forward my first message in this thread to the
kde-core-devel list and we will see what they say.


More information about the KDevelop-devel mailing list