[pedevel] Re: Suggestion for refactoring of PText
- From: Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
- To: pedevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:18:23 +0200
On 2008-04-13 at 16:33:43 [+0200], Rainer Riedl <mlist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > it will work in practice. At least I imagine no serious problems, and none
> > of the arguments you gave are really convincing, IMHO.
> >
> > > Split views have the advantage that you can have the window you work in
> > > almost fullscreen and if you want to compare or lookup things can just
> > > use
> > > the split view just as needed.
>
> > If one is anal about the 80 columns limit (as I usually am), one can fit
> > three full height windows side by side, if one has enough screen estate. I
>
> Ok, works fine for your own code
It also seems to be a quasi standard in open source projects. I believe I
have yet to see one that doesn't use it. I even seem to have convinced Axel
to go for 80 columns max instead of the fuzzy 80-90 columns. :-)
> (I meanwhile switched to something like 110
> columns as I never print any code)
Even two 110 columns window fit easily side by side on my screen (1600x1200).
With screens becoming bigger every year, for most files there's really no
need to display them in a window more than half the screen width (or even
less)...
> and sourcecode in particular. But if you
> have to work with code from other people who format with more than 80
> columns, if have to deal with CSV-Files, SQL-exports, HTML, XML, ...
... there always are execeptions, of course. :-)
> > well. Actually even better, since both windows are full height and
> > comparing
> > two texts in horizontally aligned windows is way easier than in a vertical
> > split view.
>
> That's why I vote for the Eddie way of splitting and not the old pe way. In
> that case you can split the way it best works for the kind of text you have
Ah, I haven't used Eddie yet. I just checked the splitting out. It is
definitely funny, but the horizontal splitting is way less useful for me than
a separate window would be. If I split horizontally I obviously get to views
with only half the width. So if I need the full width, I'll have to resize
the window, and resize back when I'm finished with the split. Sounds
cumbersome to me.
> > In a split views you have to switch back and forth just the same. I don't
>
> No, I meant back and forth in the sense of overlapping windows
Just don't let them overlap. :-)
> > windows, though -- at least as long as I work on projects that have a
> > maximal column limit, my windows will just have that size and stay that
> > way.
>
> Only if you are lucky to only have to work with native BFS files. But
> unfortenately on FTP or CIFS there are no attributes.
I did't mean individual document sizes. The global default or a project
default window size will work fine for attribute-less storage.
> Anyway, that reminds
> me, that the newly opened window would open with an arbitrary size and
> position anyway
The position is somehow computed (more or less helpful). The window size is
just your default window size.
> unless an magic position algorythm would be implemented (I
> doubt it is possible to create one, that works viable in 10% of cases) and
> then the positions oft the alternative views would have to be stored in the
> attributes as well, otherwise next time you open that window the position
> ist
> lost.
>
> > I think this is a non-issue: 1. There is the window title
>
> in worst case you then have to compare the whole pathname first
Well, that problem already exists for your documents anyway. And unless you
open a second window for more than just one or two files (which doesn't make
much sense, IMHO), this is really not a bigger problem.
> > place the windows where I decide to, so it shouldn't be too hard for me to
> > keep track.
>
> a customer calls in, you have to do something inbetween, 30 minutes later,
> ok, where is that damned window...
I just tried to picture that situation and failed utterly. :-) Really, if I
don't find the second window for a file, I'll simply press the magic shortcut
to pop it up.
> > > So I vote for Eddie like split views! :-)
> > I guess, if there are enough people in either camp, we'll simply have
> > both.
>
> I guess, too. I perhaps simply depends what you do with pe and how you are
> used to work. There's the IDE-approach where you simply work on one - say
> C++
> - project and then there's the swiss-army-knife-of-text-files approach.
> That's perhaps more the way I use pe. Often lots of open windows with lot's
> of different kind of file types, where often code is the documentation and
> often replace-in-all-open-windows is needed as no compiler tests consistency
> of code.
>
> So I'm fine with multiple windows as long as split views are in :-))
Looks like we agree on that one. :-)
CU, Ingo
Other related posts:
