On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:07:19 +0100, Nick Treleaven nick.treleaven@btinternet.com wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:47:31 +1100 "Lex Trotman" elextr@gmail.com wrote:
- 'Make Commands' is mentioned, perhaps this should be renamed
'Global Commands', as these may well be nothing to do with 'make'.
I agree it should be changed from 'Make' but I had trouble getting a term I was happy with. This was a general issue throughout the document, what group term to use for the builder commands? Builder itself I thought was too close to the 'build' command which doesn't use the builder ;-) "Global" I felt could be taken as a reference to storing them globally and what is being implemented is actually storing them in the Project file or user prefs. Unless the build command is changed allowing the use of builder as the group name for the make commands?
Hmm, personally I thought global could just mean for all documents. Maybe if a project is open, change the group name to 'Project Commands'.
What does everyone else think?
I'm not sure. IMO 'Build commands' would be fine or also 'Global commands', But as we all know, I'm not a native English speaker :).
+Remember that menu item two (default the 'Make Custom Target' item) +will pop up a dialog to ask for additional targets/options when invoked +allowing you to add to the command you define here.
Should this just be the 'Make Custom Target' item? (not menu item two)
Well the section was talking about changing the menu labels and commands so it might not say "Make Custom Target", hence my hedging it by putting it in brackets and noting it as default. Menu item two is somewhat ugly maybe "the second menu item" but any better suggestions for referring to a menu item independently of its label will be gratefully received.
Maybe the 'Make Custom Target' could be a more generic 'Custom command' but with a configurable starting string. The default label could still be 'Make Custom Target' but we could refer to it as the 'Custom command' item.
Not sure about this. A 'generic custom command' with a configurable starting string? Sounds a bit long-winded. Why don't we just skip it? I mean when we already have configurable commands we probably don't need to keep another kind of configurable command.
Regards, Enrico