> Doesn't matter if it works (which it seems to) it not a beauty contest or a > school homework assignment ;-). It can be beautified later if needed (but > much like the build commands implementation probably never will).
But this is an API thing so it shouldn't be to terrible. I think the worst thing is the symbol tree API which should really be changed. I'll see what I can do about it when I have time. On a more general note though I think there should really be some agreement among Geany developers regarding how such an API should look like. I don't want to introduce something that's not acceptable for others. > This makes the plugin need to be distributed as two plugins (except on gentoo > and others where it is compiled against the end users Geany) one against > unmodified Geany and one against modified Geany. So the plugins will have to > decide at runtime which is to be enabled and shown to the user. But the user > will have to download both. Not really, the modified Geany simply wouldn't be distributed until the stuff is merged to Geany. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/3571#issuecomment-1963029376 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <geany/geany/pull/3571/[email protected]>
