Quickopen delay

[Olivier JG]

On Thu 05 Apr 2012 10:33:28 PM CST, Sven Brauch wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> Since a while, we have this 150ms delay for quickopen: only if you
> type nothing for 150ms or more, the list gets updated. The change was
> introduced because for large projects, the UI gets sluggish when the
> list is updated on every keypress.
>
> I don't like this change. Especially the outline widget felt much more
> responsive before, and there the change is totally unnecessary because
> of the low item-count.
>
> The reasons why I find it annoying in particular are:
>
>  * If you type something that has no matches. Depending on how fast
> you type, you may well type four or five more chars before the list
> gets updated (remember, the timer is reset each time you press a
> key!), just to see that you need to delete them again. (example: type
> "foobar" into any document's outliner. I can type the whole word
> before the list turns empty, telling me there's no matches)
>
>  * If you want to continuously delete a part of the expression until
> more matches appear. It is substantially harder to stop at the right
> place with the delay. (example: type anything into any file's outliner
> and try to quickly delete chars at the end until more items appear in
> the quickopen list, while stopping as soon as that happens)
>
> My proposed change is to make the delay depend on how many items need
> to be searched: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104486/
> Milian doesn't like it, arguing that the timeouts are just randomly
> choosen and that a 150ms delay is unnoticeable anyways (that's why I
> write this mail, to ask for more opinions).
>
> Please, try the two versions (with the patch and without it)
> side-by-side. It's very hard to imagine the difference if you've been
> using either version for a while. Some user at IRC yesterday also
> stated the delay is totally unnoticeable, until he tried the patched
> version and agreed it feels noticeably smoother with it.
>
> Greetings,
> Sven
>

I'm with you on this one Sven, the added delay is really bothersome. 
150 milliseconds just sounds equally randomly chosen, only bad. If 
there's a better solution ready, or at least proposed, then fine, but 
as it stands, even reverting counts as a fix IMO.

-Olivier JG