>>The default is chosen according to the extension. 
>
>That's not totally correct! The extension of the file can activate the
>syntax highlighting feature, but *only* if the file is not currently

It is totally correct. The *default* is chosen according to the
extension, like I said. This is at the time the file is first
opened. It would also work at the time the file is first saved,
but that was not implemented in the version you had. After the
default is chosen automatically, you are free to manually change
it to anything you like, on a file by file basis.

>on the MRU list. In that case, the MRU's language settings will

The MRU retention of the language setting (amongst other things) is
entirely deliberate ; it's a feature that we explicitly coded into
the editor, not something that just 'happens'.

>override the language setting normally suggested by the file's
>extension.  (This is not in ANY of the documentation.)

Because the documentation is not written - something clearly and
specifically stated in the release notes. We also state that this
is BETA software and will have bugs, like the one you described.

We further say not to use the software if you are not prepared to
put up with some bugs. Reporting them is fine ; complaining about
them is not.

>This sounds like you plan on fixing the very bug I was originally
>trying to notify you about, but got my head bit off in this newsgroup,

We have made no secret of the fact that the 'save as' problem will be
fixed - something that we stated in the very same message as the one you
refer to above (re: bitten heads).

>Does a couple hours of frustration with trying to get consistent
>editor syntax highlighting sound like enough "play" to you? Don't dare
>belittle me like that, as if I didn't make an effort.

Come on ! I find it unbelievable that you claim to spend several HOURS
trying to use the simple, obvious, straightforward language setting
in the properties dialog ???

If that is the case, sir, then I say to you - don't use beta software!

>I had found frustrating, undocumented behaviour. It  sure seemed like

I will quote you from the changes file ...

  This release has a new editor in it. It may not work as expected. Remember
  that this is BETA software - don't use it if you're not prepared to put up
  with some bugs.

This same document states that the docs are not written. So I say to you again:
if this bothers you so much, don't use it ! It really annoys us that here you
are complaining about undocumented behaviour, when you have effectively been
warned to expect just this - no documentation and to expect bugs.

>No one told me that the instant that I clicked "File New", that the
>previously affirmed "POV-Ray" setting would automatically change to

The language setting is specific to each file - a common concept to
anyone familiar with code editors. This is knowledge that I would
expect of anyone willing to take on beta testing a new editor. The
setting you made of 'POV-Ray' _is_ retained - on the file that you
set it on. But the new file (which has, when it is created, no file
extension, and this no language type) has a type of 'none', just as
it should.

>"<none>". Since the other settings were staying the same after I set
>them, I expected that the language setting would stay the same also.

I quote you from the changes.txt:

  o Some properties only affect the current file, and some affect all files.
    Additionally, most (but not all) of those that affect the current file will
    become the default for any new files opened after that point. This is by
    design. For example, changing the tab stop setting only affects the current
    file, but will then become the default for new files from that point on.

It is clear from the above ('but not all') that you should not 'expect' the
language setting to stay the same. It may or may not. As it turns out, it's
not, and this is for an entirely logical and reasonable cause. How could the
language setting POSSIBLY be global, when it is possible to load files of
multiple types.

It did not occur to us that anyone could fail to understand this simple
concept.
    
>Since this is a beta test, it is entirely appropriate to send email to
>the Bug Report address to alert you of a possible bug. I sent all the

I have no objection to bug reports, as I state. I DO have an objection to
your tone.

>Also in your help file message about bug reporting, you mention that I
>shouldn't expect a personal answer from anyone on the POV-Team. After
>reading that, I didn't expect you to answer my email.  I posted my

I quote part of your message -

  Both files will have seemingly identical information stored 
  in them, but only the first one is color highlighted. Why?

  I first learned of this by inserting the "Ready-made scene"
  named "Basic Scene" into an empty and newly created file in
  the editor. Doing this caused no highlighting. I saved the
  file with an appropriate name, and still no highlighting. It
  is still black and white no matter what I try. Is this to be
  expected?

You pose two questions here. That sure looks like something that
you want an answer to ... from my point of view, it seemed that an
answer was appropriate. If your questions are rhetorical, fine, but
make sure we know that. There are sufficient numbers of people who
DON'T read (or care about) the bug reporting instructions that we
can't magically determine which is which.

I do not want any further discussion on this thread. There's no
point in continuing it as it'll only annoy both of us more. Please
do not follow up or reply via email.

Post a reply to this message