jpetso at gmx.at
Wed Feb 7 01:05:25 UTC 2007
On Wednesday, 7. February 2007, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 07.02.07 00:37:27, Jakob Petsovits wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 30. January 2007, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > + ? 'create scope'
> > + QMake specific - a scope in QMake is a section that's only used if
> > + the given condition is true.
> > + 'create scope' should be a 'scope' icon (from the
> > + 'code structure icons' category) with a 'new' sparkle.
> Uhm, actually this is not QMake specific, it applies at least to CMake
> too, if we want to support that via Ui (which I don't know). CMake has
> if/else constructs which are comparable to foo | bar in QMake (or just
> foo if its an if without else).
Good point, although it's not called scope in CMake afair.
Which leads us to the question if it makes sense to use one unified name for
this kind of action (and one icon for it) or if it's better to stay with the
build system's naming scheme (and probably use only one icon nevertheless).
Matt, will CMake projects have "condition" sub-items in their displayed tree
representation, and will there be a "create condition" like action?
> > + - 'class'
> > + Icon representing classes
> > + (= data types that combine multiple variables and methods)
> > + IDEAS: something that combines multiple (two or three) 'function' and
> > + 'variable' icons, like for example three cubes
> You should add here that method == function in most programming languages
Yeah, I guess so. Let's schedule it for tomorrow, just out of lazyness :)
> > + - 'interface'
> > + Icon representing interfaces (= class templates without code)
> > + IDEAS: like 'class', but more transparent / "ghostly"
> Not sure an interface is really a class template (after all in C++ there
> are template classes, which could be mixed with this).
I know that. I fought with the description, and I lost. Give me your
explanation in less than 1,5 lines (including the relation to classes)
and I'll love you.
> > + - 'enum'
> > + Icon representing enumerations
> > + (= data types defined by which values they can hold)
> > + IDEAS: a small cube or rectangle with even smaller items
> > + (like, one-pixel-high lines) in/on it
> I'm not sure that one would be able to see the 1-pixel-high lines in
> 16x16 toolbar icons.
I bet you will.
It's not that those lines are important anyhow, they would just indicate that
something smaller than the actual entity (=enum) is in there.
And no, these don't have to be 1-pixel-high lines, the artists are free to
have better ideas (that's why it's marked as "IDEAS", not as
"'icon' should ...").
> In general, I guess squares and circles translate to
> class/variable/functions as well as any other "thing" one could come up
> with, so thats fine with me.
Right. I don't care about how they look like in the end, I just want them to
be used consistently throughout the whole icon set, and that you can tell
them apart once you've grokked the system. That's more important than
if a code item is represented by a circle or by a square.
I suspect our high-profile artists know that as well :)
Thanks for your input,
Updated version scheduled for tomorrow.
More information about the KDevelop-devel