Neil Hodgson wrote:
Robert Roessler:
I'm still undecided about this so don't want to ask you to do more
work yet, but ...
Perhaps I misconstrued your previous reply to me?
"If you really want to do this and there is no large increase in code
then it can go in due to symmetry."
At that stage there was "just one call, an SCI_GETPROPERTY" which
mirrored SCI_SETPROPERTY.
Rats! I thought I could sneak that past you.
Since they are using Scintilla's existing "properties" facility, they
look exactly like... Scintilla property macros - perhaps we are just
having a naming-based confusion here (given that you do not use the
word "macro" for this replacement operation)?
You are right. I didn't think this was defined in the
documentation: I wonder who wrote that bit?
It was not me.
ScintillaDoc.html... as I have for most (all?) of the features/changes
implemented or requested by me to date - although the site is not
being updated to reflect said changes. :)
Updating the site can cause trouble when there are features that
aren't yet in a release.
Wow, I lose this one too. :)
I have added an updated Scintilla.iface to the getprops.zip on my
site. I am a little unsure about the get/fun usage here - I used get,
but maybe these should use fun?
"fun" has been used for string results rather than "get" as the
string is being returned in an argument rather than as the value and
this should be continued.
I perceived that usage convention - it just wasn't clear if that
should trump the obvious set/get symmetry... new version of
getprops.zip on my site.
Robert Roessler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rftp.com
_______________________________________________
Scintilla-interest mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.lyra.org/mailman/listinfo/scintilla-interest
