On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:20, Nick Treleaven nick.treleaven@btinternet.com wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:10:57 +0200 Jiří Techet techet@gmail.com wrote:
Otherwise it's a mess e.g. with project indentation settings.
Glad you said it first, I feel I have been too negative in the past
I didn't mean Geany's implementation is a mess, I meant if a plugin overrode the project support it would have to reimplement indent settings in a dialog.
I meant the same. Geany's code on the other hand looks pretty reasonable. First I was surprised that it isn't (g)object-oriented but it looks it reduces the amount of code considerably. The header files look nice - the set of functions in the headers is small, which is a good sign and I haven't seen anything horrible in the sources. The only thing I dislike are the global variables.
There are only two major things I see as a problem now - how the projects work and the complexity and weired semantics of the build dialog, but you know that already. Contrary to other IDEs, I think geany is fixable; I'm just afraid it might go in the direction of other IDEs by adding features and getting bloated (how ironic from a person who added new features by creating a new plugin, but you understand me I think).
two days ;-). I also don't understand why there are the "editor" options like maximal column width. This seems quite an arbitrary option taken from the preferences dialog. With such logic you could put almost anything from preferences into project. I would just remove it. (On the other hand I understand the indent options, they are definitely useful.)
It's useful to override some things which change from project to project, we think there should be more project override prefs but we haven't got around to it yet. The long line marker override was sent as a patch and it seems useful.
I'm just afraid of "lost in dialogs, lost in overrides, not knowing what settings is currently applied hell" I know from other IDEs. Should be made carefully.
Jiri