Devel

devel@lists.geany.org

1641 discussions

geany gtk3
by podhorsky.ksj 18 Nov '13

18 Nov '13

Hello, is gtk3 port still supported? It doesn't work now. It writes to me: ** Gtk:ERROR:gtkstylecontext.c:1019:style_data_lookup: assertion failed: (priv->widget != NULL || priv->widget_path != NULL) Aborted (core dumped) Thanks for answer

3 14

g_spawn_command_line_async result in the message tab
by Francesco OpenCode Apruzzese 17 Nov '13

17 Nov '13

Hi all, I'm try to create a new Geany plugin with this documentation (http://www.geany.org/manual/reference/) and the examples in this repo (https://github.com/geany/geany-plugins) This is the plugin i'm developing: https://github.com/OpenCode/geany-python-good-code I'm using g_spawn_command_line_async to launch a tool with the current file as parameter. I want know if is possibile to read the command output and show it in the messages. Thank you.

3 4

spawning rewrite - RFC
by Dimitar Zhekov 17 Nov '13

17 Nov '13

Hi, The attached archive contains: - spawn.[ch] - spawning functions and tests, not Geany-dependent - Makefile - to compile the spawning tests under *nix/win~1 - emit.c - a useful program to spawn - spawn.rsp - as in "./spawn < spawn.rsp" - respawn.diff - patch for Makefile.am, build.c and tools.c I can patch search.c as well, if we agree on "grep --exclude-dir" for the non-recursive searches instead of finding and passing the file names manually, as explained in the "Improving FiF" thread. If we don't, or start some endless discussion, feel free to replace the current mess with a smaller one. tools.c should probably use spawn_sync(..., gchar *stdout, gchar *stderr, gint *exit_status), but I haven't written one yet. If the spawned program emits mixed stdout and stderr messages fast, like emit.c, they will be grouped, depending on the size of your pipe buffers. Doesn't seem a problem in practice - the tons of messages from making Geany with -Wall -WExtra are OK, and running ./autogen.sh is fine too. Note that there is no conversion to UNICODE under win~1. Using the "ANSI" functions is OK AFAICT, make/grep/gcc are all "ANSI" programs, and the only thing an ansi -> unicode -> ansi conversion does is to produce errors such as "Create process failed, unable to encode byte at offset xyz" (win~1 FiF with non-UFT-8 fails regularily). -- E-gards: Jimmy

3 3

Plugin path on GNU/Linux
by Francesco OpenCode Apruzzese 16 Nov '13

16 Nov '13

Hi all, I'm new in Geany Plugin Dev. I'm try to follow the step of this gude: http://www.geany.org/manual/reference/howto.html When I create the plugin.so file I don't know where this file must be moved. My system is an Ubuntu 12.10 with Geany installed from repository, Can you help me, please?

2 2

Replace & Find by default in the Replace dialog
by Pallai Roland 14 Nov '13

14 Nov '13

Hi, I made a PR: https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/189 It's not a big deal, but might come handy for some. What do you think?

1 0

Let's use Vala
by Matthew Brush 13 Nov '13

13 Nov '13

Hi all, In the spirit of the previous discussions about using C99 and C++ in Geany code with similar subject lines, I'd like to take a poll/discussion for allowing the use of Vala for new/re-written Geany code. The pros and cons likely will be slightly biased since I would obviously like to use Vala in Geany, but here they are anyway: Pros: ----- * Power of high-level OOP language using existing GObject backend with no C boilerplate required * Uses same type-system as existing C code * Automatic memory management * Clean expressive syntax (foreach, as, properties, signals, async, etc.) * Exceptions (which uses C/GError-style exceptions in generated C code) * No extra dependency for release users (generated C code can be shipped) * Can generate Gobject-Introspection bindings automatically allowing use from a bunch of cool languages like Python, JavaScript, etc (and as many other languages as support Gobject-Introspection) for plugins. * Easy to learn for anyone who's used C++, Java, C#, etc. * Uses all existing dependencies as its runtime library (ex. GLib/GIO). * Can generate C/H code that is usable from within existing C code, so no requirement to completely re-write, can just add on modular code as needed. * Can be tuned to output optimized C code, or call optimized C code quite easily * Can sometimes generate clever and/or optimized code that would be tedious to write in C. * Has Autotools and Waf support already, and using from plain GNU Make is trivial. * Actively developed and supported, and having active mailing list and IRC channels. (ex. it's easier to submit a patch to Vala language than ISO C). * AFAIK it generates C89-compliant code :) Cons: ----- * A fairly new language (since 2006). It's hard to argue against this, but also impossible to move forward without adopting new stuff at some point. * Some dark corners/bugs due to being such a new language (compared to C/C++). * Actively developed so sometimes we probably have to require specific valac versions to support certain features (ie. nothing like c89, c99, c++98, etc but not unlike supporting newer G* versions). * As with above, may require to use fairly modern/specific dependency versions of the G* C libraries (ex. might not work on RHEL or some other LTS distros). * Extra dependency (valac) for maintainers/developers. * Using non-GLib-based libraries requires to write boring but trivial binding .vapi files (not huge deal for existing Geany code). * Can sometimes generate heap-heavy or non-optimized code. * Can sometimes generate C code that causes warnings with common compiler warning flags, would require to disable some compiler warnings on generated C code to have a completely clean build (ex. use -w on all .vala code) * The documentation isn't as great as an ISO language that existed since forever. The official language specification isn't as complete or fleshed-out (ex. has TODOs) as an ISO language. There is lots of documentation out there, for example on the official Wiki, but it's still no substitude for definitive language reference and decades of books/literature on the subject. * More people know C than C++/C#/Java (ie. style of Vala). IMO, this one is untrue since people who use C nowadays are either well-versed embedded programmers who already know the higher-level stuff, C/Gobject/Gtk+ programmers who already know or can easily understand how the higher-level stuff works (ex. by looking at generated C code), high-level-only programmers who for the most part don't need to care about how the underpinnings work and already would know Vala since it's basically C#(/Java), or finally, and I believe the least likely; complete n00bs who would be much safer writing garbage in any high-level language than directly in something like C/C++ anyway. For more information about Vala, this a good starting point: https://wiki.gnome.org/Vala/Documentation If we can cleanly get more +1's than -1's (in principle, and especially from the core developers and active contributors), without wandering off into nitty-gritty details, version-specific bugs encountered that don't/won't specifically apply to Geany, stuff I have specifically accounted for in the pros/cons list, and minutia like we (especially ME) always do, then we can move forward with this and hammer-out those details later during integration, rather than stifflying the idea here in this thread as we (including ME) often do. If one or more of the things you like or dislike is already mentioned, there's no point in specifically responding to it unless you think it's unclear or inaccurate, just give your +1/-1 and see where it goes. Basically what I'm saying is that if we can keep this discussion on track and people show enthusiasm (or at least not strong distain, in principle) then I will personally volunteer my time to make it happen. If it turns into a zillion message thread about off-topic, or nitty-gritty stuff (which should occur later on, in a different thread) or hate from people who have never tried the language in earnest but still have a strong anti-opinion (especially based on old or presumed information, or general hate for the G* toolkit we already use), then I probably will just forget it, and probably no one else will move this forward. P.S. Sorry for stupid-sounding discussion rules, it's just an attempt to move something useful forward, productively, with consensus, without wasting our voluntary time discussing deep details too early-on, and based on past similar discussions on this list and knowledge I have about some poeple's existing opinions. Please don't take offense or rant about the stupid "rules", just believe I'm sincere in that I'm trying to organize the discussion more productively than usual (even if failing) :) Cheers, Matthew Brush

8 39

Please check your mail clients to support threads
by Frank Lanitz 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Hi folks, Sorry for that Geany-OT posting... but please be so kind and take some second to check whether your mail client is respecting the threading when answering a post. I've got a lot of spitted up threads here and it's really annoying and time consuming to put them together again. In details: When answering a post, your mail client (or at latest yout mail server) should add a message ID to your mail. This can be checked in source of your mail and looks similar to: Message-ID: <527B726C.9070200(a)frank.uvena.de> (it's another post of myself) Also when hitting answer, your client should add the References and In-Reply-To header to new mail. Also pelase don't answer to the collection of mails. Cheers, Frank

2 2

Maintaining edit history on reload
by Arthur Rosenstein 09 Nov '13

09 Nov '13

Hi, I have a patch that adds support for maintaining the undo stack on document reload and allowing the reload operation to be reverted. Any interest in pulling this upstream? -- Cheers, Arthur

3 3

bug hunting #3
by Pavel Roschin 07 Nov '13

07 Nov '13

Moving forward to the software source code analysis. Updated more than 300 alloc-functions for GLib. Here are new results (better and better): https://gist.github.com/scriptum/7360333 Updated rules: https://github.com/scriptum/cppcheck-libs -- Best regards, Pavel Roschin aka RPG

3 2

bug hunting #2
by Pavel Roschin 07 Nov '13

07 Nov '13

Hello! Almost completed glib + Geany cppcheck config which leads to few new errors in code: http://pastebin.com/EihjrKyC I removed some false-pos. What do you think about goto-ing? Most leaks are because of return without free. Using goto instead of return and only one return at the end should be a good pattern which has no return-leaks (at least). Here is a new config (for Geany): https://gist.github.com/scriptum/7294264 Plugins update: https://gist.github.com/scriptum/7282262 -- Best regards, Pavel Roschin aka RPG

3 3

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Devel