On 19-8-2012 16:58, Martin wrote: > On 19/08/2012 15:42, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >>> That makes it (to me) impossible to have a setup-like access to it. >> Then why not use the basic (vs advanced) options screen. Presumably the >> basic screen would group those elements anyway? >> >> > Because it hasn't been implemented Then we can stop the entire discussion right now as it's all about changes that haven't been implemented.
> The basic would probably not put fpc and make on different pages though > (which the setup does). > > The easiest way to implement it (without duplicating everything) is to > filter out certain options (visible := false), and, or hide some pages > completly. Yes, or disable (gray out) those controls so they won't be editable but will be visible. Although this does clutter up the GUI, it does show the user where everything is. > I am not sure, if re-grouping options into new pages, will be a good idea. > - hard to implement, unless by copy and paste Could be. Surely maintenance of basic+advanced must be easier than maintaining setup+options? > - not helping users, if they go from one to the other, and nothing is > where it was. Well yes. How do you think users feel now between setup<>options? The difference between basic<>advanced will be less due to identical layout f screen. Also see my gray out idea. > Note: the basic/advanced must then also be supported by packages (e.g. > Jedi) Or packages that don't implement basic won't be showed in the basic options screen. -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
