Talk:Folding editor

Image at the top

... seems confusing to me. Can anyone explain the black line? If so, please add to the caption ... quota 18:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors provide?

The second paragraph in this article:

Folding is provided by many modern text editors, and syntax-based or semantics-based folding is now a component of many software development environments.

seems to be contradicted by the very short list of editors below. Which is right? quota 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Code folding to this article

I've added the mergeto/mergefrom templates the these two articles. My main justification is that the two articles are really discussing the same thing, and there's even some duplicated information that could benefit by consolidation. Where there's a distinction it could easily be made in a "Code folding" section in this article. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 06:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that the merge should go the other way; a folding editor is defined to be an editor which supports code folding, so code folding is logically prior to folding editor. Agree that there's duplication that could be removed, though. EdC (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are arguments both ways. The main reason I want to go with merging to Folding editor is because Text folding already got merged to Folding editor, so it would make sense to bring Code folding in the same way. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 06:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Code folding is more about the mechanism. If there's anything that should be merged into this article, it's only the features comparison section. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this page could be removed. There is no such thing as "folding editor". Code folding is just one of many features of an editor. And there is no much contents in this article anyway. Maybe the History chapter and the image could be merged to Code folding, there is not much else. --PauliKL (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to consider the various parts mentioned. Code folding, text folding, editor, folding editor, text editor, etc.. The two basic parts, as pointed out, are the concept of the editor and the type of content that is edited. One of the problems is obviously the chicken versus egg problem. However, I believe this is the point of hyperlinks, that will allow crosslinking for the sake of properly connecting subject matter.

With that said, is the best way to handle it (within an encyclopedia format) a single article with all the parts included, or separated articles on each of the parts? What if we considered all the combinations? First there are editors, and types of editors, including sub-types. Then there are types of content. Programming code, text outlines, etc.. So, does text folding come first, with code folding being a specific sub-type in the same article?

Would it work to have an editors page, with appropriate links to articles about the types of content? The editors page would have a table that would either be divided into sub-types of editors, or a separate column for capability to handle each type of content. Then there would be an article about each type of content.

Next, the question becomes if the contents types are each on separate articles, or just parts of one article? It might be hard to combine these because some have to do with regular text documents (letters, outlines, manuscripts, etc.), and the other has to do with programming code text. - KitchM (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When searching for an encyclopedia entry one is going to be looking for an explanation of the process. A folding text editor performs code folding. However, an IDE also performs code folding. So it would make sense to have a text editors page that may reference the features of editors, with a link to such things as the article on code folding. The folding editors article is not helpful from an encyclopedic perspective. I could see an argument for having sections of the code folding article talking about the various forms of 'code' or text folding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.253.28 (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the suggested-merge templates, but in the reverse direction to the original suggestion above: this article should get merged into Code folding. That other article has more content, including a list of editors. Of the two article titles, it also seems like the more widely accepted term. Either way though, there definitely isn't a strong enough distinction to justify having two separate articles. Anyone disagree? Ytpete (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

The book describing the Transputer Development System (TDS) is:

The Transputer Development System, INMOS Ltd, Prentice Hall, 1988, ISBN 0-13-928995-X.

I have a copy on my shelf if anyone needs further information. Brendanoconnor (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"—usually named"?

Could someone please define or explain this phrase in the first sentence? - KitchM (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emacs...

... doesn't have a Folding feature.

For proof, go to #emacs @ irc.freenode.net and ask the room how to fold code.

They'll recommend you use something else, because Emacs doesn't do folding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.106.227 (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(update:) sorry, I just tested, and I was wrong. I don't know why they always say there's no folding when there's this, which works: http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/EasyCodeOutline. 201.19.106.227 (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]