Hi ...
A small detail ... when using "make all" shift-f9, Geany only save the current file automatically, and not all as I expected.
Is this meant too be like this, of a bug ?
/BL
Hi Bo,
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:50:41 +0100 Bo Lorentsen bl@lue.dk wrote:
A small detail ... when using "make all" shift-f9, Geany only save the current file automatically, and not all as I expected.
Is this meant too be like this, of a bug ?
It's a feature to prevent unwanted saving. I think it is much better doing it like this.
Regards, Frank
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:21:07 +0100, Frank Lanitz linux@partysoke.de wrote:
Hi Bo,
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:50:41 +0100 Bo Lorentsen bl@lue.dk wrote:
A small detail ... when using "make all" shift-f9, Geany only save the current file automatically, and not all as I expected.
Is this meant too be like this, of a bug ?
It's a feature to prevent unwanted saving. I think it is much better doing it like this.
Exactly. IMO saving all files on Make all would cause more confusion and might be even trouble than to force a manual save all ;-).
Regards, Enrico
Bo Lorentsen wrote:
... not all as I expected.
Frank Lanitz wrote:
I think ...
Enrico Tröger wrote:
IMO ...
It seems like this could be a user preference?
Before compiling: [x] Save only current document [ ] Automatically save all changed documents. [ ] Warn before saving changed documents.
FWIW, I once wrote a macro for Nedit to compile FreePascal units, that would warn with a dialog something like this:
================================================== Warning ==================================================
In order to insure a reliable compile cycle, all open files must be saved before compiling.
Do you want to save your modified files?", __________________________________________________ [Save All] [Save Each] [Cancel] ==================================================
- Jeff
Hi,
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:42:59 -0600 "Jeff Pohlmeyer" yetanothergeek@gmail.com wrote:
Bo Lorentsen wrote:
... not all as I expected.
Frank Lanitz wrote:
I think ...
Enrico Tröger wrote:
IMO ...
It seems like this could be a user preference?
Before compiling: [x] Save only current document [ ] Automatically save all changed documents. [ ] Warn before saving changed documents.
On the one hand it would make Geany more customizable but on the other it would bloat the code. But I like the idea, even when I very used to save only current document. Also It should added to plugin interface, so plugins need to handle with a couple of files could react as wished by the user.
Regards, Frank
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:42:59 -0600, "Jeff Pohlmeyer" yetanothergeek@gmail.com wrote:
Bo Lorentsen wrote:
... not all as I expected.
Frank Lanitz wrote:
I think ...
Enrico Tröger wrote:
IMO ...
It seems like this could be a user preference?
Before compiling: [x] Save only current document [ ] Automatically save all changed documents. [ ] Warn before saving changed documents.
Do we really need this? Yet another dialog? Why not just pressing Ctrl-Shift-s (or whatever Save all is bound to) or pressing the toolbar icon for Save all?
Do you want to save your modified files?", __________________________________________________ [Save All] [Save Each] [Cancel] ==================================================
What's the difference between Save All and Save Each?
Regards, Enrico
On Dec 16, 2007 8:38 AM, Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:42:59 -0600, "Jeff Pohlmeyer" wrote:
It seems like this could be a user preference?
Do we really need this? Yet another dialog? Why not just pressing Ctrl-Shift-s (or whatever Save all is bound to) or pressing the toolbar icon for Save all?
No, I don't think we really "need" it - I guess you would want to weigh the (perceived) gain against the difficulty of implementing and documenting it, plus the additional bloat to geany itself.
( For that matter, I could do something similar with a few lines of Lua. :)
[Save All] [Save Each] [Cancel]
What's the difference between Save All and Save Each?
"Save All" just saves everything that needs saved in one shot. "Save Each" loops through the unsaved files with another confirmation for each one, like "save file.one?" "save file.two?" ... (Probably overkill actually, most people would either want all or none.)
- Jeff
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:42:59 -0600 "Jeff Pohlmeyer" yetanothergeek@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like this could be a user preference?
Before compiling: [x] Save only current document
I think this would be a reasonable pref ('save the current document first'), if anyone wants to write a patch.
[ ] Automatically save all changed documents. [ ] Warn before saving changed documents.
I don't think these are necessary. I don't think it's good to save all files - any users without version control could lose work and not realise. In this case it's a good thing the user has to consciously choose Save All. And as Enrico mentioned I think most linux users would strongly dislike a dialog asking the same question every time a build is started.
Regards, Nick
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:37:54 -0600, "Jeff Pohlmeyer" yetanothergeek@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 8:38 AM, Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:42:59 -0600, "Jeff Pohlmeyer" wrote:
It seems like this could be a user preference?
Do we really need this? Yet another dialog? Why not just pressing Ctrl-Shift-s (or whatever Save all is bound to) or pressing the toolbar icon for Save all?
No, I don't think we really "need" it - I guess you would want to weigh the (perceived) gain against the difficulty of implementing and documenting it, plus the additional bloat to geany itself.
The biggest stopper IMO is the additional dialog, an additional hurdle to get to the goal(e.g. compiling). And yet another setting.
( For that matter, I could do something similar with a few lines of Lua. :)
Always the same argument from the scripting guys ;-).
Regards, Enrico