> I wasn't meaning to argue *for* a combo, just the distinction betweenSince "project" does provide functionality, I'm changing the
> project and custom/non-project/whatever. As we agreed, "all" is redundant
> if the delete is available, so a "project" check box is fine by me so long
> as it does the same as the project setting on the combo.
proposition: make it a check box. A single click will be enough to
(un)lock it, and a double click (check-uncheck) will load the
project patterns and enable editing.
(From UI standpoint, it may be better to make Files label a button,
and the text between Files and Project on click - it'll look very
similar to the current combo box. But I'm not a HIG expert.)
[...]> By "usual" I just meant using the %, not what the actual possible--include=%p will simply produce --include=<all patterns>. We would
> substitutions would be.
need something like {--include=%p} to signify what text to repeat for
each pattern.
:) On the same hand, we don't even save the Files history, and not even
> > I'll explain again. The only point of the checkbox is to be able to
> > quickly disable the extra options, which is the same as clearing them,
> > *except* that you can restore them quickly.
> >
> > If we consider them so important as to have an extra interface element,
> > why don't we use a normal history, and have several sets of options?
> >
>
> "why don't" == "doesn't, and nobody cared enough to do it" ;-)
the current values of 'Search for' and 'Replace with'.
--
E-gards: Jimmy
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel