2009/4/28 Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger@uvena.de>

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:58:08 +0200, Jimmy wrote:

Hey Jimmy,

>I always somehow missed the possibility of defining different
>fonts/size for different styles...

I personally hate this as it makes it all inconsistent and especially
different font sizes confuses me a lot. But that's just me, I guess
there are other people around who will like it.

Oh yeah, this is a love/hate stuff...the graphic designer in me likes to play around with fonts...
As you long as you stick with Monospace fonts (fixed width), you can still get a clean code that aligns properly and all...
anyway....

>http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4089/geanyscreenshot.png
>
>multi-font/size possibilities, perfect dark background for the folding
>bar, bigger choice of markers, size of the margins...
>it's not much but it counts in the long run...
>and geany is even better than before in my eyes now....
>
>Now, to the main point, I understand the aim of developing a
>lightweight sober IDE....so right from the bat, confusing the user
>with millions of possibility of customization might not be suited...
>
>I'm kinda testing the water here...if this extra customization matters
>to people, I could clean up my hacks...and come up (or anyone willing
>to) come up with a system to implement it...

Yeah, that'd be the very first step: provide a clean patch (ideally
based on a recent SVN version).

Does anyone have some experiences in Mercurial -> SVN conversion...
that'll be a good occasion to try out svn in any case....

A few questions which came to my mind:
How to represent fonts+sizes in filetypes.*?
* By adding two additional fields for font name + size to all existing
styles of all existing filetypes?
-> that would probably break any existing colour scheme or at least
cause lots of work for theme authors
* Make the two additional fields optional?
-> so everything works as by now but interested users can extend it on
their own? This would require good documentation and advertisement of
that feature.

Second is best yes probably...that wouldn't be handy to oblige everyone to edit their themes to use a new version...
if people fancy changing some fonts, instead of having
word;#colorfg;#colofbg;false;false
they'll just add relevant stuff at the end...
word;#colorfg;#colofbg;false;false;!Monaco, 10

In another post you mentioned something like "filetype.toto.extended".
While I think at some point it might make sense to split the current
filetype.* definition files into settings and style-related, yet
another set of files for whatever settings seems to much overhead and
make things more complicated than necessary, IMO.

I agree...I just see this as a solution that would cause the least disturbances to the code...

>in any case, it would be nice to have this possibilites mentionned in
>Hacking Geany at least...I'm sure some people would be glad to find the
>infos...

Not sure.
There is already a section "Syntax highlighting". What exactly do you
expect to be added?

On second thought not much....I guess what's written here is enough for the brave kind that want of get into this...
The scintilla doc is quite dry, there's not some much nice detailed examples floating around...
bit so that' s more a scintilla doc thing than geany's, you're right...

Cheers,
Jimmy

Regards,
Enrico

--
Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc

_______________________________________________
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel