1_4 laundry list

[Serge Lussier]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernd Gehrmann" <bernd at physik.hu-berlin.de>
To: <kdevelop-devel at kdevelop.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: 1_4 laundry list


> > > IMO, it's not. The old dialogs were very efficient. The new one in
> > > unusable because you have to click on each gui element before you
> > > enter something. In the time you have filled out the dialog, you
> > > could have typed in the method by hand twice...
> > Hmmm... I had no time to review my code and check to auto-refresh the
> > dialog`s data
>
> Don't know what you mean here.
I don;t know what you mean too then...;-)
...[stripped]
> Take a watch. Now stop the time you need to add a slot with the
> dialog. Stop the time you need to add it by hand (using F12 to
> switch between files). Now compare :-) As another alternative,
> compare with M-x agulbra-add-member ;-)
???
> > WORSE: All my code relies on the ClassParser engine.
> > I mean errors are highly probable when adding code into the CPP files.
> > ->Just read : When adding implemented code because of wrong line numbers
> > given
> > by the ClassParser methods.
>
> If someone tells me how to get the contents of the whole current
> line from FlexLexer, I could try to add context information to the
> class store which could then be used to be tolerant wrt added and
> removed lines.
I tried to call the ClassParser's methods to refresh its store data.
Sometimes it worked, sometime not, and sometime it crashed Kdevelop.
I dunno why.
Thus, I've inserted some (ugly) code into the CKdevelop::slotCVAdd[] methods
to minimize erratic insertion places into the CPP files.
( If only I had time to write code to call and know/use/parse  ctags to get
the right
  line # into the CPP files. )

> > My last words on the faulty ClassProperties:
> > I've made it in three days ( the whole codesource and the dialog) , and
gave
> > it to John.
> > After I had only some few time to debug and correct the errors. I knew
that
> > the GUI
> > design was not efficient, but it was better then the old one in that I
was
> > not required
> > to switch to the QT/KDE docs to seek and remember the signals
prototypes.
> > That was the MAIN and ORIGINAL reason for the new ClassProperties dlg.
> > ...And what do you think about the static attributes ? There was NO code
> > for implementing static variables into the CPP files...
>
> Didn't notice that :-) As I said, I mainly was concerned about stuff
> that used to work before (and worked efficiently) in comparison to the
> state now.
Yes I agree, but still, the new dialog is in some parts, more efficient than
the old ones.
I know I have improved them a bit. There will always be some issues when
adding new and rewriting features. I was almost alone to do it.
Just consider that I knew nothing about the ClassStore and CKdevelop stuff
three days before I sent  the first patch to John...;-)
A better one: That was the very first time I played with QT's designer tool.
;-)))

I've hoped for somebody more skilled than me to take my work and continue to
improve,
correct and adapt it to a more professional alike product.

( Sorry for my bad english ;-)

Like Ralf said, That was my first try on doing stuff for/on KDE/QT/Kdevelop.

Bernd, I have to sincerely thank you though, because you have pointed
important issues (GUI related)
which I consider very constructive (issues) for myself. Whoa! I have so much
stuff to learn ;-)
Excepted Ralf and John, you are the first person to talk about my work.

I am still proud of what I did for Kdevelop, even if it has issues and a
short live duration.
I feel partly sorry because of my fault, I reduced your enjoyment using
Kdevelop.

You know what ? - I have a dream: I whish I could sit beside a
QT/KDE/Kdevelop guru
and have fulltime fun to learn and code on Linux/XWindows/KDE/QT/Kdevelop
stuff ;-)
It's a dream, It's only a dream ;-(

Thanks,
Bretzel


-
to unsubscribe from this list send an email to kdevelop-devel-request at kdevelop.org with the following body:
unsubscribe »your-email-address«