On 19 May 2014 19:58, Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 14-05-18 10:10 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:
[snip]
- the effort to incorporate it into the existing PM.
I don't think this will be very difficult, even from me who loathes GtkTreeView :)
IIUC Thomas' proposal would use the existing methods so it doesn't require any changes in these areas.
But it requires writing own libpeas (ie. scanners,
Unless I have misunderstood Thomas (have I?) he is using the existing scanner.
loaders+runtimes,
again existing
+gobject-introspection-bindings, etc).
As said in my previous post, bindings have nothing to do with the loader.
The main difference between the two options is that libpeas can provide loaders for new languages simply (as shown by Matthew loading Python3) but at the cost of having to integrate something very different to the current system, whereas Thomas' proposal is a simple extension of the existing system to fix Geanypy problems but doesn't offer loading of any extra languages without further effort.
To my mind both approaches have their good points, and both have their downsides.
As I said before, I am not able to pick a best solution at this point.
To my mind the important question is "how hard is it to change Geany to allow libpeas loaded plugins to register keybindings?" with the secondary question of the PM as well (its more the interface from peas to the PM code than the treeview, since it has to work with existing plugins as well). If those potential problems are solved then libpeas may provide a faster path to more languages, though only C (so C++ & Vala I guess), Python, javascript and something called seed are currently available. I would really like to know what plans there are for others?
Cheers Lex
Cheers, Matthew Brush
Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel