On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:17:38 +1000% Lex Trotman <ele...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 June 2010 03:11, Dimitar Zhekov <dimitar.zhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi. > > > > Taking point from the proposition to merge the recent files, what do > > you think about considering the recent files a logical part of the > > file list, and load/save the open/recent file lists together? This > > way, we will have better/more recent files (one set for each > > project) without the need to override geany.conf on each file > > open/close. N.B. Since the list will be handled together, "Project > > based session files" will affect the recent file list too. > > Would suit me, depends on what other people think. > This is a good alternative to "global recent files list" approach I described. > > > > Per-project interface settings (mostly the interface layout) seems > > reasonable too IMHO. I have several programming projects, and the > > message window/side bar are very convinient for them. But for my > > other projects, one with XSMP documentation/snippets and another > > with BDF files, the message window/side bar are practically useless. > > Ditto. > Not currently needed by me, but I'm sure it would be useful. > > > > As a side effect, if per-project recent files and interface settings > > are implemented, Eugene's sm will be able to restore the Geany-s > > state better. Isn't it time to make the two sm-s functionally more > > similar, so we could choose one based on the implementation only? > > Agree, that is part of what the list in the other thread was intended > to do and why I was trying to define it in terms of user visible > behaviour, so I'm all for this. > The more similar the two versions are, the better. And, I agree, that would make it simpler to see their differences. Best regards, Eugene. _______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel