On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 09:18:29 -0300
"Flávio Etrusco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Lengthy email warning! :-$
> >
> > Another idea: one thread per thread.
>
> Great idea ;-)
>
> > > - Move all (all "non-basic" at least) editor commands to a separate
> > > unit and implement each command on a separate method or class. I'm
> > > inclined to make them TAction descendants to unify shortcut handling,
> > > but I'm not set yet...
> >
> > What would we gain?
>
> I'd like it to address these things:
> - synedit.pp is too big.
Obviously.
> - some code is too coupled with the editor internals when it didn't need
> to.
>- because the huge ExecuteCommand method is so big it has a polluted
> namespace and some non-sense variable reusing.
> - changing the behaviour of a command in non-trivial for a user
> (developer).
> - assigning editor commands to menu items and avoid shortcut
> clashing without hacks.
>
> I don't know how well the TAction code would handle a number of
> commands as large as synedit use, and it would need some rework to get
> chained shortcuts (two shortcuts sequence) going.
TAction speed is very bad with hundreds of shortcuts. I had to use AVL trees
for the IDE shortcuts to reduce the loading time of the IDE.
> > Normally at least the biggest part of a synedit command
> > handles synedit specific things like cursor, invalidating,
> > gutter, marks, selection, highlighter and undo/redo stuff.
>
> Not exactly. These should be and are mostly handled "transparently"
> for the command, and completing this abstraction is one of the goals.
This should be, but they are not yet. It's good that someone wants to
improve ti.
Mattias
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
