Re: (jeffa) Re: Enhancement: "hidden" code tag

Actually I was thinking the other way, code that WOULD show up in d/l code, but does not show up in the node. So that the node itself only contains the chunks of code that are actually relevant to the conversation, but if you hit d/l code, you get a complete, working program, that includes the parts that were hidden from the conversation. Although the idea to have code that doesn't show up in d/l code would be useful as well, now that I think about it.

Comment on Re: (jeffa) Re: Enhancement: "hidden" code tag

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Enhancement: "hidden" code tag by Kanji (Parson) on Mar 12, 2003 at 00:45 UTC
Is there some reason why you couldn't do this using the already existing <readmore>? Read more... (277 Bytes) `# I think the fake code problem is here: some_sub('blah blah blah'); sub some_sub { do_something(); &nbsl;do_something_else(); }` [download] Read more... (276 Bytes) --k.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Enhancement: "hidden" code tag by hossman (Prior) on Mar 12, 2003 at 01:21 UTC
The distinction is that stuff you "hide" in a readmore will show up if anyone looks at your node directly, where as the poster is suggesting a new tag which would never show up when viewing the node (either in a list, or directly) and would only be included as part of the "d/l code" content. The advantage of readmore tag is being able to shorten the node if you just want an overview. The advantage of a "hidden_code" tag would be that you could allways make "d/l code" provide a complete program, with all neccessary use statements and helper functions, but reading the node would only include the specific code you have a question about.	[reply]