Re: [ jEdit-devel ] bufferset scope of a bufferset?

[Seph S. <se...@mi...>]

I exclusively use Editpane BufferSet.

It's the most intuitive setting according to other program. IMHO  
Global doesn't make any sense but that's just me.

Regards
Seph

On 23/04/2009, at 21.42, Alan Ezust wrote:

> Well, I'm not using View scope buffersets anymore now that they're  
> merging on unsplit and there are enough options for how the new ones  
> are initially populated. Is anyone else?
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Kazutoshi Satoda <k_s...@f2... 
> > wrote:
> Alan Ezust wrote:
> I have a bufferset and I need to know what its scope is. Either an  
> object
> to the thing it is the bufferset of, or a member of type  
> "BufferSet.scope".
> Something.
>
> An instance of BufferSet can be obtained from a EditPane, and its  
> scope
> can also be obtained from the EditPane. Thus, I think if one can  
> obtain
> a BufferSet, the one also can obtain its scope.
>
>
> Also, I can't understand why, if there is a bufferset for the  
> EditPane, we
> also need a "scope" member. Why not get that from the BufferSet?
>
> Since the current UI provides a scope of BufferSet for each EditPane,
> there is a variable to store it. I think it doesn't matter so much in
> which it is held. So I grained the BufferSet as a general practice of
> class design.
>
>
> A View can also have a BufferSet, but it might be the Global one.
>
> "A View has the global BufferSet"?
> It sounds complicated, and I want to remove such a complication as  
> much
> as possible.
>
>
> Ah, you wanted to remove View buffersets entirely, I remember. Then it
> wouldn't be an issue.
>
> Why reduce the flexibility of buffersets?
>
> I think the EditPane-scope is the most straightforward one since the
> BufferSet is shown in BufferSwitcher or BufferTabs which are both  
> bound
> for each EditPane.
>
> Honestly, I want to have only EditPane-scope and remove all UIs and
> codes managing the scope and sharing the BufferSet.
>
> However, I think the global-scope is good for keep the old behavior.
>
> But I still don't have good justification to have the View-scope.
>
> I dug the previous discussion, and found that you said the following  
> at
> the end.
> maybe I could live without view scope buffersets if merge after  
> unsplit and
> the option to open a buffer and remove it from other buffersets were  
> both
> implemented.
> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Is-there-any-use-case-of-modifiable-bufferset-scope--p19061057.html
>
> Now, we have both merge after unsplit (in r14608) and the exclusive
> behavior (in r14983).
> http://jedit.svn.sourceforge.net/jedit/?view=rev&rev=14608
> http://jedit.svn.sourceforge.net/jedit/?view=rev&rev=14983
>
> Then, do you still have any concrete motivation to have the View- 
> scope?
>
> If not, it will likely be a great break-through to simplify the  
> BufferSet
> feature (UI, docs, API, and implementation).
>
> -- 
> k_satoda
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Crystal Reports &#45; New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
> Check out the new simplified licensign option that enables unlimited
> royalty&#45;free distribution of the report engine for externally  
> facing
> server and web deployment.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects--
> -----------------------------------------------
> jEdit Developers' List
> jEd...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jedit-devel