Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Codecompletion via autocomplete-plus #98

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 15, 2016

Conversation

justjoheinz
Copy link
Contributor

Please review! Do not merge, yet.
There is a problem with

@model.replCompletions prefix

in the sense that I need to type check the file once to get an instance of the model. I do not know how to get around that. Otherwise it works very nicely.

@archaeron
Copy link
Member

Hello
thanks a lot for this start.
I made two changes in a branch for you to look:

First i catch all the errors to make it easier to se the function that loads an eventual ipkg file.
This is more to make the code look better in general.
72914c1

And then I initialize the model before doing the replCompletion
cda2a3c

Does this fix your problem?

@justjoheinz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Cool, this should be fine now. thanks for the help. I adjusted the completer a little bit that it is slightly less aggressive. It can always be triggered manually, or will trigger (depending on the autocomplete+ settings) when the length of the word being considered is > 2
AFAIK it can be merged.

@justjoheinz
Copy link
Contributor Author

@archaeron Anything that still needs to be done? I'd like to see this get through before submitting a PR for the atom linter package.

@archaeron
Copy link
Member

@justjoheinz hey
sorry, I'm pretty busy.

It looks good. The only small issue I have at the moment is that it marks every suggestion as function.
Do you want me to merge it now and we fix it later?

@justjoheinz
Copy link
Contributor Author

I am in favor of merging, because I can get the linter changes in afterwards. Regarding the "mark everything as function" - do you happen to know how this can be avoided. AFAIK idris just returns strings, and we do not know what they are.

@archaeron
Copy link
Member

I'll merge 👍

I thought I'd seen a field that tells us what Idris is returning. But I might be mistaken.
I'll have to try this evening hopefully.

archaeron added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 15, 2016
@archaeron archaeron merged commit 918b587 into idris-hackers:master Mar 15, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants