Project file list support for the grepview part (w/ patch)

[Matthew Woehlke]

Kris Wong wrote:
>> grepdlg is getting REALLY crowded with options... do you think it would 
>> be possible/reasonable to remove the 'recursive' checkbox and replace 
>> this with a dropdown 'in this folder', 'in this folder and subfolders', 
>> 'in project'? (Values are suggestions only, feel free to improve.)
> 
> I'm not sure that a dropdown makes sense for this option.  I understand
> that the dialog is getting pretty wide, though (its around 800 pixels
> wide on my system).  I can see rearranging the checkbox options so that
> they take more room vertically and less room horizontally (2 columns or
> similar).

My thinking was that you are changing how you want to define the search 
area. One option is 'files in project'. Another is 'files on disk'. But 
I am not saying it's the best option, just the best I could think of at 
the time. :-)

I would really prefer to avoid two rows of checkboxes. :-)

>> Does this patch disable the current directory, or does it restrict the
>> search to the directory AND files in the project? If no, would it be 
>> reasonable to do this? If yes, would it be reasonable to have both 
>> options? (I.e. 'all in project', 'all in project AND this directory'?)
> 
> It disables the Files dropdown, Directory dropdown (and corresponding
> buttons), Recursive option and Suppress find errors option.

Ok, makes sense... It might be nice to limit the scope by folder, 
though. Same comments as below apply.

>> Does this override the file type? Should it?
> 
> It disables this field.  Should it? - It seemed reasonable to.  The user
> can exclude file types using the Exclude field.  I suppose it doesn't
> hurt anything by being enabled, but implementing it may be a little
> hairy.

Well, I would rather use file types as a filter than clutter the 
excludes list, especially since mine is already cluttered. But I am 
still leaning toward getting it in first, and then working to polish it.

One reason: I work on a project that provides API's in several 
languages. All of these are part of the monolithic top-level project, 
but it is useful to say 'I am only interested in *.java' or 'I am only 
interested in *.c'. (OTOH 'add to project' seems to be broken, so my 
project isn't properly populated anyway.)

> The question then becomes, are any of the devs willing to approve/commit
> this patch?  And if so, should any of the changes Matthew suggested be
> made first?

I am not one of the people authorized to answer your first question, but 
I was leaning towards "no" for your second one. :-)

-- 
Matthew
"What a wonderful smell you've discovered!" -- Princess Leia Organa