Re: [Lazarus] RFC : "Resolved View"

2016-02-12 Thread Giuliano Colla
Il 12/02/2016 02:41, Martin Frb ha scritto: Actual hiding is more work, because it needs to shift x positions in some line. Probably needs big changes. Though readonly may be doable. IMHO such a feature would be typically used to read and understand code, therefore read-only is not only

Re: [Lazarus] RFC : "Resolved View"

2016-02-12 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Martin Frb wrote: On 11/02/2016 23:54, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: By this I mean a view of a unit as the compiler will see it: - Correct include files included This has been long on the list. But still no in the doing. Ignoring: - any high/low-light or other markup

Re: [Lazarus] RFC : "Resolved View"

2016-02-12 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Mattias Gaertner wrote: On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:54:38 +0100 (CET) Michael Van Canneyt wrote: [...] By this I mean a view of a unit as the compiler will see it: - Correct include files included - IFDefs properly resolved. The IDE groks include

Re: [Lazarus] RFC : "Resolved View"

2016-02-12 Thread Mattias Gaertner
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:25:11 +0100 (CET) Michael Van Canneyt wrote: >[...] > > What about include files used twice in a unit? > > Yes, that happens in the RTL as a kind of poor-mans generics. That's no problem when the file compiles. But while typing a directive the

Re: [Lazarus] RFC : "Resolved View"

2016-02-12 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Mattias Gaertner wrote: On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:25:11 +0100 (CET) Michael Van Canneyt wrote: [...] What about include files used twice in a unit? Yes, that happens in the RTL as a kind of poor-mans generics. That's no problem when the file

Re: [Lazarus] RFC : "Resolved View"

2016-02-12 Thread Martin Frb
On 12/02/2016 12:45, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Well, if it is on the todo list, I don't need to file a feature request ;) Not really on todo, only remembered as being wanted. -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org

Re: [Lazarus] RFC : "Resolved View"

2016-02-12 Thread Martin Frb
On 12/02/2016 16:10, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Martin Frb wrote: Not really on todo, only remembered as being wanted. Should I file a request anyway or has memory been sufficiently refreshed ? I had not yet read Mattias will go for a different approach solving it.

Re: [Lazarus] RFC : "Resolved View"

2016-02-12 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Martin Frb wrote: On 12/02/2016 12:45, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Well, if it is on the todo list, I don't need to file a feature request ;) Not really on todo, only remembered as being wanted. Should I file a request anyway or has memory been sufficiently refreshed

[Lazarus] RFC : "Resolved View"

2016-02-11 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
Hi, I've been thinking about a recent problem posed by Anthony Walter on the fpc-pascal mailing list: the abundant use of include files and IFDEFS and the ensuing lack of 'overview'. So I asked myself: what if we somehow "invert" the problem ? How hard would it be to create a 'resolved view'

Re: [Lazarus] RFC : "Resolved View"

2016-02-11 Thread Martin Frb
On 11/02/2016 23:54, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: By this I mean a view of a unit as the compiler will see it: - Correct include files included This has been long on the list. But still no in the doing. Ignoring: - any high/low-light or other markup to indicate the fact that the text comes