[Prev] Thread [Next]  |  [Prev] Date [Next]

Re: [sage-devel] Re: can't name a script "new.sage"? Dan Drake Thu Sep 22 22:00:12 2011

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 at 06:47PM -0700, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:46:03 PM UTC-7, Tom wrote:
> >
> > +1 to .file.py, since it'll hide the file from directory listings.
> I'm not sure I want to hide the file.  I don't actually use xxx.sage files 
> much, but when I do, I usually just delete the py file right away, and if 
> it's hidden, that's harder to do.  I think of hidden files as ones that I 
> don't want to see but I want to keep for a while, not temporary files like 
> these preparsed ones.  Do people like to keep the preparsed ones around for 
> a while?

I agree here -- I really prefer programs to not create hidden files

> Another option: should we by default delete the preparsed file automatically 
> after using it?  That is, if you do "sage file.sage", then 
> "file_preparsed.py" (or something like that) would be created, then fed into 
> sage-python, and then deleted at the end.  If you wanted to keep the file, 
> you could run "sage -preparse file.sage" on its own.
> Or I suppose we could store the preparsed files in ~/.sage/preparsed/, with 
> filenames modified to reflect the full path of the original file (so you can 
> have different files "script.sage" in several different directories, and the 
> preparser will create different .py files for each one).

These seem reasonable -- especially putting things in ~/.sage/preparsed.
(Or maybe ~/.sage/tmp/preparsed).

> > > while You are at it:
> > > preparsed_FILE.py or even simply .FILE.py would make tab completion
> > > happy. (who has not accidentally edited FILE.py instead of FILE.sage
> > > more than once?)
> >
> I can see your point, but there is also virtue in having the preparsed file 
> listed alphabetically next to the original file.

I'd also prefer to have preparsed files listed next to the originals. 


---  Dan Drake
-----  http://mathsci.kaist.ac.kr/~drake