On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Edward K. Ream <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> It would be simpler and less bug-prone to >>> > just use the default qt functionality for headline editing, with the >>> > slight drawback that ctrl+a / ctrl+e would not work. >> >> Ctrl-I would also be lost, which I'd miss, although it's not a deal >> breaker. But having to press 'Enter,Ctrl-I' to start a new node is not >> as fluid as just Ctrl-I. > > Compromise is not an option. The qt plugin must pass all unit tests, > and many of those test require full integration of headlines with > Leo's core. This is the difference between prototype and finished > code. It's always a tradeoff - simplicity vs. code reuse. Both are defendable arguments, but personally I always go for simplicity (because less code => less stuff that can break, faster operation, and more graceful scaling to toolkit upgrades and new features). > gui-independent. The present headline work won't take that long, but > I *will* take the time to do the job properly. Very understandable - though I'm always wary of anything that is not trivial (because it's often a sign that you are working against the framework, as opposed to "going with the flow" and doing it the way it's meant to be done by framework designers). It's probably because I've had bad experiences with "custom code" in the past. It led to weird behaviour and lots of bugs that accumulated as fixes were made, only to be corrected by throwing away all the custom code and "going with the flow". -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
