|
From: Seph S. <se...@mi...> - 2009-04-23 21:44:18
|
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 - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > Check out the new simplified licensign option that enables unlimited > royalty-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 |