On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:26:41 +0100 Nick Treleaven <nick.treleaven(a)btinternet.com> wrote: If code navigation will work only per document, I guess I won't be able to use geany as text editor for programming any longer. Global navigation is one of must have features to me. -- Yura Siamashka <yurand2(a)gmail.com>

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:59:33 -0400 "Mark Turner" <mturner4(a)csee.usf.edu> wrote: They are independent, but if we had MRU notebook tab switching it would then be redundant to have code navigation also switch notebook tabs as well as moving between line numbers. Anyhow, if someone wants to implement just the MRU notebook tab switching this is fine. Regards, Nick

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:55:47 +0300 Yura Siamashka <yurand2(a)gmail.com> wrote: Maybe people don't like this idea, but if we had notebook tab switching forward/back in a history of most recently used documents, it would be completely unnecessary to have code navigation also switch between documents. This would actually give the user more control over where they want to switch to, as often the user works mainly on a single file and switches to other tabs to check something. Regards, Nick

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:32:38 +0200 Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger(a)uvena.de> wrote: In that case you would use the MRU documents switching. I think the only negative difference in features would be that switching to a document without using goto tag would add an element in the queue. So in that case you might need to use the command several times. All existing functionality would still be present, but it would be accessed in a different way. But it means it's easier to navigate all the code positions without having to step back over other documents. e.g. after using goto tag, but not using navigate back because you want to edit some other part of the code in the original document. Regards, Nick

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:50:54 +0200 Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger(a)uvena.de> wrote: Yes, it would be a bit more complicated, but probably OK when the user got used to it. But that's what makes it more powerful. Ctrl-Tab would only go one way in the MRU documents queue (back?), so there would be another command to go forward, maybe Ctrl-Shift-Tab. Alternatively just drop Ctrl-Tab and use a different pair of keybindings. I just wanted to raise the issue. After the MRU documents switching is implemented and people are used to it, maybe then someone will agree with me ;-) Regards, Nick

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:09:33 -0400 "Mark Turner" <mturner4(a)csee.usf.edu> wrote: I wanted to raise what I saw as a related issue, sorry if it seemed the thread got hijacked. We did say the MRU switching could be implemented. OK, I had assumed 2 commands, back and forward in a history of documents. But I guess a window manager style Alt-Tab would only need one command. A single command would not really replace any part of Code Navigation. Regards, Nick

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:30:55 +0100, Nick Treleaven <nick.treleaven(a)btinternet.com> wrote: And it'd be cool if it was implemented :). I agree with Nick, once we have MRU-like Ctrl-Tab behaviour which we all want to have as it seems, then we can talk about modifying/adjusting the code naviagation. But the first step is the MRU-llike Ctrl-Tab which is firstly independent from any code navigation changes. I think a one-command solution would be better. Do you want to also use a small window to show cycling between tabs like window managers do? That would be a cute and handy feature but also might get unusable with many open tabs (I usually have between 25 and 35 files open). Just as a note. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.key

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:18:08 +0100 Nick Treleaven <nick.treleaven(a)btinternet.com> wrote: It is not minor issue, IMHO, if code navigation is difficult and complicated to use, it is not worth using. I still don't see how it is more powerfull then exisiting navigation. Documents navigation sounds interesting, but only as additional feature, not as replace of existing code navigation. Here is list of my critical requirements for IDE. If IDE don't have even one of them I think it is not good. Currently Geany match all of them, thanks a lot to devs and contributors. I hope Geany will stay this way in future. 1) should be fast (if you only 2 times faster then eclipse you are too slow to be usefull) 2) code highlight 3) code navigation 4) bookmarks 5) ability to run make, parse compiler output 6) ability to run scripts (.sh, .py and others) 7) ability to run compiled program 8) ability to search in directory -- Yura Siamashka <yurand2(a)gmail.com>