Whilst the ST2 multiple cursors feature is excellent in it's own right, (and indeed superior in many respects) I still find myself missing the 'feel' of the rectangular selection tool that I used to use (frequently) in Textpad back when I used a Win32 development machine.

When I started using ST2, I was not sure if I was simply not used to multiple cursors, but I have been using ST2 for over 6 months now, and I still miss the old rectangular selection mode, so I have now come to the conclusion that it actually offers something that multiple cursors do not.

I do love multiple cursors; but a rectangular selection mode a-la-Textpad would be a welcome addition.

(I used it to help edit and vertically align code, parameter blocks, and CSV data files).

 with some names that contain, let's say 'sub', the mathcing is less robust, this is a minor thing but nonetheless

To reproduce:

- Open a CSS file with @media{} queries

- Hold cmd and tap R to invoke the in-file fuzzy finder

OR

- Hold cmd and tap T, then type @

- Attempt to find a media query by typing "media"

Expected result:

A list of available media queries to jump to

Actual result:

An empty list (or a list of rules which happen to contain "media")

Currently if I have a large code. I'm separating it by comments and indentations to fold them later.

For example:

// Views

... some views code here ...

// Models

... some models here

Would be better if there would be some codes for folding, to avoid indentation at some point of hierarchy.

For example:

// Views fold_start_1

... some views code here without indentation at all ...

// fold_end_1

Now you can fold all the code between fold_start_1 and fold_end_1.

Ofc folding codes could be shorter, it's just as an example

I have been programming in Tcl for Alpha on Macs for many years.  It had very complete API, similar to the ST2 one.  TextMate came with this very short API based only in environmental variables, but with those genial ideas. In that case the programming language was totally free, since TM is based in external scripting.  And now ST2.  It obliges you to script in Python.  I didn't know Python, although read a lot about and programmed a bit on it.  But each time I dig into the ST2 API to program on Python… I miss Ruby so much!  Please, try Ruby!  Give it an opportunity.

It is a general, widely known practical observation that (at least some) people will leave (at least some of) their software preferences unchanged after installation.

Upon installation, the preference whether newlines are ensured at EOF on save is false.

This installation default is wreaking a small degree of havoc with programmers using versioning systems including git.

The reasonable and usual practice of software in Unix and elsewhere is to expect, and to maintain, that all lines end with a newline. This includes the final line. For more information, here are two links:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/729692/why-should-files-end-with-a-newline

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165492&cid=13808398

To be more precise, after installation, in Default/Preferences.sublime-settings these statements occur:

  // Set to true to ensure the last line of the file ends in a newline
  // character when saving
  "ensure_newline_at_eof_on_save": false,

This should be changed instead so after installation automatically the statements are:

  // Set to false to ensure the last line of the file does not end in a newline
  // character when saving
  "ensure_newline_at_eof_on_save": true,

Further, the editor must not display a new empty line after saving as it does now when this preference is set to true. This even though there is a final newline.

The editor may be treating newlines erroneously as line separators and not correctly as line terminators. This possibility is described in the links above.

Alternatively, you could implement a Close All Saved Files option.