On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:00:16 -0500 "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 7:04 AM, vitalije <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Without any intention to diminish any effort that recently went > > into > > making very flexible theme handling code, I still wander whether it > > was good thing to do. Let me explain a bit. I haven't looked at > > that code yet, and I have only skimmed through the theme related > > discussion. So, I may be very wrong about this. > > I think Terry and I would agree that you are, indeed, mistaken. The > present system didn't happen as a result of some imagined design > principle. It happened because stylesheets are built into Qt. I haven't looked at the new code either, so I don't really have an opinion. My earlier work really only provided @settings substitution in stylesheets, a feature HTML CSS authors begged for for years, and an optional tree based approach to writing the stylesheet, which became obsolete when @data settings became treeish. My feeling is that layering of code would be good, I've tried to think about what the layers might be, something like - node storage and mutation - outline storage / representation / manipulation - outline loading / session stuff gotta go, haven't really finished the thought, but point is XML pasting and other features useful to some user at some time don't cost too much if they're at the right level. Also I know you're (Vitalige) trying to make a general point and not bog down in specifics, but p.v.u is heavily and broadly used, so the answers to all the questions you raised need to be assembled to decide what to do there. Cheers -Terry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
