[Geany-Devel] Miscellaneous Ideas

Devyn Collier Johnson devyncjohnson at xxxxx
Tue Nov 10 15:52:37 UTC 2015

On 11/10/2015 09:50 AM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
> On 10/11/2015 02:32, Lex Trotman wrote:
>> On 10 November 2015 at 03:08, Devyn Collier Johnson
>>> To improve the highlighting used by C source-code, could "bool" be added to
>>> "primary=" in ./data/filetypes.c? "bool" existed since C99 (
>>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ &&
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_data_types#stdbool.h ). Also, what about
>>> "true" and "false" (lowercase) as seen in the <stdbool.h>? Currently, in
>>> Geany, "bool" looks like a variable (no highlighting) while other data-types
>>> use highlighting. True, "bool" is not in the "core" C-language without
>>> libraries, but it seems to me that "bool" should be added.
>> It is defined by the tags made from parsing the system headers into
>> C99.tags.  Perhaps its not defined as a type in stdbool.h?
> `bool` is not really a type in C, it's a macro expanding to _Bool -- and
> even, applications are explicitly allowed to undefine `bool`, `false`
> and `true` at their convenience.
> This said, we could probably indeed have `bool`, `false` and `true` in
> filetypes.c's `primary=` list (especially as we do have `FALSE` and
> `TRUE` which aren't even defined in standard C).  Technically those
> aren't keywords [1], but I guess it'd be convenient to have them -- yet
> one has to remember those are library extensions only available through
> stdbool.h.
> Regards,
> Colomban
> [1] see i.e. section 6.4.1§1 in the ISO/IEC 9899:201x n1570 draft
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.geany.org
> https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

Geany Dev Team:

Thank you everyone for your insightful and helpful feedback and comments.

I understand that package maintainers compile the code themselves. I am 
mainly referring to the default compiling options used by Geany or the 
suggested compilation process used in README files. However, I did some 
testing, and I did not see any noticeable performance improvements. In 
other words, my tests show that the defaults are fine. Even when 
compiling with flags that disable or remove debugging, the Geany 
executable is not smaller and the memory usage is the same (even when 
using "strip --strip-debug --strip-unneeded ./geany"). When compiling 
Geany, I did see many deprecation and pointer warnings (mainly with GTK).

By the way, what does "--enable-force" do to the building process? Is it 
simply a joke?

I am not disappointed if my code is not merged. I understand that the 
team needs to ensure that Geany is fast, stable, and lightweight. Plus, 
this is not "my" project, so I do not expect to have all my ideas 
implemented just because "I" suggest something.

I will be sure to consider contributing to the Wiki.

Lex, true, licenses could be added as file templates. However, using 
"Edit > Insert Comments > SOME-LICENSE" is not dependent on the 
programming language.

Matthew and Lex, so which mailing list is the correct one for plugin 
development? You each suggested a different mailing list.

Matthew, as far as adding license templates, I think must be added to 
Geany because placing a license template in 
~/.config/geany/filedefs/templates and /usr/share/geany/templates does 
not add the new license to "Edit > Insert Comments". I even tried 
closing Geany and re-opening it and reloading the configuration.

I strongly agree with Colomban Wendling about adding "bool", "true", and 
"false" to "primary=" in filetypes.c.

Devyn Collier Johnson
DevynCJohnson at Gmail.com

More information about the Devel mailing list