> 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.
In the current state of Geany with most devs AWOL then its a case of what is proposed is it. You are the one who has thought about the requirements, the possibilities and chosen a design, but nobody else has actually thought about it. There will never be agreement when nobody has time to understand the problem and actually consider the pros and cons of the proposal. Thats why the only comments have been "I don't like it", not any sensible suggestion for improvement or alternatives, nobody has time to think of them. (And I don't claim any great insight, but at least I understand the reasoning behind your basic choice of approach, but I also don't have time to consider the design in intimate detail either) -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/3571#issuecomment-1963066392 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <geany/geany/pull/3571/[email protected]>
