In theory this should be all it's needed but something else may appear during implementation. How does it sound?

Good if it's not too hard to implement the details like activating a row, navigating them an whatnot, but I guess we don't have much custom stuff apart knowing where to go, which is exactly what the extension would know how to do.

I'd really just copy/paste what's in Geany and just replace TMTag with some other struct so the code creating/updating the tree would mostly be the same apart from some details like:

no support of root groups
no copying icons from the parents in the symbol tree
no construction of displayed name or tooltip (these we get directly from the server)

I'd even artificially construct scope from the tree-like information that is obtained from the server because really scared to touch anything in the symbol tree code.

In any case, I think the good starting point would be to create a separate Symbol tab with all the functionality and then try experimenting with connecting the tree to the existing Geany code. Not stuff for the upcoming release (unless it's postponed before Christmas :-).

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.