Re: Discuss: retire two of the three new gnx-related settings?

2023-07-05 Thread Edward K. Ream
On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 6:29:35 AM UTC-5 Edward K. Ream wrote: If these settings must remain, their default values should change to: - *@string unl-status-kind = gnx* - *@bool full-unl-paths = False* Alright. These settings will remain with the new defaults shown above. It's time to m

Re: Discuss: retire two of the three new gnx-related settings?

2023-07-05 Thread Thomas Passin
On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 10:50:36 AM UTC-4 Edward K. Ream wrote: On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 8:48 AM Thomas Passin wrote: As for your expression paths = list(reversed([z.h for z in p.self_and_parents()])), there is no need to cast it to a list. This is the second time you have made this

Re: Discuss: retire two of the three new gnx-related settings?

2023-07-05 Thread Edward K. Ream
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 8:48 AM Thomas Passin wrote: > I disagree about removing the *@string unl-status-kind* setting. I get > the most value from the status bar when I can see the path of a node. A > gnx-based unl tells me nothing useful. If I want to see if the node is in > the outline I th

Re: Discuss: retire two of the three new gnx-related settings?

2023-07-05 Thread Thomas Passin
I disagree about removing the *@string unl-status-kind* setting. I get the most value from the status bar when I can see the path of a node. A gnx-based unl tells me nothing useful. If I want to see if the node is in the outline I think it is, I can look at its tab or the title bar of the L

Discuss: retire two of the three new gnx-related settings?

2023-07-05 Thread Edward K. Ream
Don't panic. I'm not going to do anything rash. Imo, there is no need for these two new settings: - *@string unl-status-kind = legacy* - *@bool full-unl-paths = True* If these settings must remain, their default values should change to: - *@string unl-status-kind = gnx* - *@bool full-u