> On 2010-11-19 22:58:49, Jon Ander Peñalba wrote: > > I think that this solves the problem. I don't know if I've added all the > > symbols that cause trouble, but if not, it's really simple to update :) > > Benjamin Poulain wrote: > In my opinion, it is just the wrong way to solve the problem. You still > have not addressed the case where you match "XX" in a string of > "XXXXXXXXXXXXX". > > In you last patch, you replace special symbols, but those can appear in > an URL, you want to match them. If you want to escape all the control > character in a meaningful way, your code will end up being bigger than the > previous code. > > The objective of you patch is "Text highlighting in the url bar > simplified", the new code is neither simplified, neither correct. > > Jon Ander Peñalba wrote: > I think it's simpler and way more readable than our current solution. > I don't understand the problem of "XX" in "XXXXX". The result is > "<b>XX</b><b>XX</b>X" and that's what's supposed to be. > > I know that hard-coding all the symbols and removing them from the string > is normally a bad solution, but in this case I think we have more to gain, > the previous code is quite hard to follow.
If I take a site like http://www.snowandrock.com/all/ski/fcp-category/home I might want to look it up in the history by typing "snow+rock" and this currently doesn't work with the regexp approach. as for the </b><b> I don't really like it, if you type X then it'd result in <b>X</b><b>X</b><b>X</b><b>X</b><b>X</b>, even though it doesn't matter that much, that's a bit of overhead compared to <b>XXXXX</b>. Weighing the pros and cons, I think the regexp-based solution is going to become as unreadable as the current implementation quite soon at this rate, and I fear it might never be as robust. I agree that the current function used to do that can seem somewhat cryptic, and I take the blame for it, I should probably write a comment block there to explain what it does, since it's probably something that's bound to be changed and/or fine tuned in the future. http://xkcd.com/208/ - Pierre ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100154/#review365 ----------------------------------------------------------- On 2010-11-19 22:56:28, Jon Ander Peñalba wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100154/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2010-11-19 22:56:28) > > > Review request for rekonq. > > > Summary > ------- > > I've simplified text highlighting. I think the behaviour hasn't changed, but > a second opinion is welcome :) > > I've removed the Qt::escape (and updated the test accordingly) because I find > it useless, but if it needs to be there for any reason there's no problem in > putting it back. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/tests/listitem_test.cpp fc0b62e > src/urlbar/listitem.cpp a0462e7 > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100154/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > The 'listitem_test' test passes. > > > Thanks, > > Jon Ander > >
_______________________________________________ rekonq mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/rekonq
