Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Limits on the number of possible buttons...

Expand Messages
  • Martin Dalecki
    ... Right. But if you ask for it ... you should get it 8-). I guess my 1600x1200 resolution sceen could present about 50 buttons in line maximally. BTW. Did
    Message 1 of 17 , Mar 14, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Andy Kahn wrote:
      >
      > > ... inside the GTK+ GUI programmatic questionary
      > > dialogues are already removed from my current
      > > personal developement tree. Motif and Athena will
      > > follow RSN.
      >
      > If I understand you correctly, you're simply removing the use/need for
      > MAXBUT, which is defined to be 10. Egad, the thought of having a
      > dialog box with more than 10 buttons is terrifying.

      Right. But if you ask for it ... you should get it 8-).
      I guess my 1600x1200 resolution sceen could present about 50
      buttons in line maximally.

      BTW. Did you maintan you configuration notebook dialogue code,
      which did "rejected" officially but I found personlly to
      be more convenient then the pseudo input sheet we have now
      instead.

      --
      Marcin Dalecki
    • Martin Dalecki
      ... I would restrict it a bit: The problem is solved for Marcins personal current derivative of vim . However I hope that sooner or later Bram will take most
      Message 2 of 17 , Mar 14, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Ralf Arens wrote:
        >
        > * Marcin Dalecki [2000-03-14 22:51]:
        > > ... inside the GTK+ GUI programmatic questionary
        > > dialogues are already removed from my current
        > > personal developement tree. Motif and Athena will
        > > follow RSN.
        >
        > I hope I understood this correctly. In other words: "The problem is
        > solved."

        I would restrict it a bit: "The problem is solved for Marcins personal
        current derivative of vim". However I hope that sooner
        or later Bram will take most of the changes I did into the
        official Vim too. But I can't tell in advance.
        One of the more important changes I did in the time between is for
        example full support for gettext message translation (with translations
        into polish and german already there!) and mostly some
        other i18n relevant stuff.

        > > So anybody going to write a reasonable ispell dialogue
        > > please just go ahead.
        >
        > If you're speaking about calling ispell for one word and have a
        > dialogue to choose from:
        >
        > I already exists, otherwise I wouldn't have experienced this problem.
        > (If anyone thinks, it's not reasonable enough, tell me.)
        >
        > http://home.tu-clausthal.de/~mwra/vim/Ispell.vim

        Thank's I will have a look...

        --
        Marcin Dalecki
      • Vince Negri
        ... Such abominations already exist in Win32/Win16... ... Vince Legal Disclaimer: Any views expressed by the sender of this message are not necessarily those
        Message 3 of 17 , Mar 15, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          > Andy Kahn quaked:
          > Egad, the thought of having a
          > dialog box with more than 10 buttons is terrifying.

          Such abominations already exist in Win32/Win16...
          > <<Image1.gif>>
          >
          >
          Vince
          Legal Disclaimer: Any views expressed by the sender of this message are
          not necessarily those of Application Solutions Ltd. Information in this
          e-mail may be confidential and is for the use of the intended recipient
          only, no mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise such
          privilege. Please advise the sender if you receive this e-mail by mistake.
        • Marcin Dalecki
          ... Looks funny. However *there* actully may be legitimate use for it. But could you just post the corresponding script code please? I just wonder why the
          Message 4 of 17 , Mar 15, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Vince Negri wrote:
            >
            > > Andy Kahn quaked:
            > > Egad, the thought of having a
            > > dialog box with more than 10 buttons is terrifying.
            >
            > Such abominations already exist in Win32/Win16...


            Looks funny. However *there* actully may be
            legitimate use for it. But could you just post
            the corresponding script code please?
            I just wonder why the layout in windows appears to
            be vertical and not horizontal...
          • Vince Negri
            ... The layout is usually horizontal (like normal windows dialogues), but when the number of buttons is so high that the resulting dialogue is too wide, it
            Message 5 of 17 , Mar 15, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              > Marcin Dalecki wrote:
              > Vince Negri wrote:
              > > Such abominations already exist in Win32/Win16...

              > Looks funny. However *there* actully may be
              > legitimate use for it. But could you just post
              > the corresponding script code please?
              > I just wonder why the layout in windows appears to
              > be vertical and not horizontal...

              The layout is usually horizontal (like normal windows
              dialogues), but when the number of buttons is so high
              that the resulting dialogue is too wide, it switches to
              a vertical style. This was the final decision of what I recall
              as a _very_ long and vigorously-argued thread. :)

              The script code was simply

              echo confirm("Do you like big dialogues?", "Yes\nYes\n ... ")

              Vince


              Legal Disclaimer: Any views expressed by the sender of this message are
              not necessarily those of Application Solutions Ltd. Information in this
              e-mail may be confidential and is for the use of the intended recipient
              only, no mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise such
              privilege. Please advise the sender if you receive this e-mail by mistake.
            • Marcin Dalecki
              ... Correctly all other GUI-s just ignore this ;-). ... Oh yes sure... Thank s anyway. What about the hidden semantics of letting explicity echo confirm( Do
              Message 6 of 17 , Mar 15, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Vince Negri wrote:
                >
                > > Marcin Dalecki wrote:
                > > Vince Negri wrote:
                > > > Such abominations already exist in Win32/Win16...
                >
                > > Looks funny. However *there* actully may be
                > > legitimate use for it. But could you just post
                > > the corresponding script code please?
                > > I just wonder why the layout in windows appears to
                > > be vertical and not horizontal...
                >
                > The layout is usually horizontal (like normal windows
                > dialogues), but when the number of buttons is so high
                > that the resulting dialogue is too wide, it switches to
                > a vertical style. This was the final decision of what I recall
                > as a _very_ long and vigorously-argued thread. :)

                Correctly all other GUI-s just ignore this ;-).

                > The script code was simply
                >
                > echo confirm("Do you like big dialogues?", "Yes\nYes\n ... ")

                Oh yes sure...
                Thank's anyway.

                What about the hidden semantics of letting explicity

                echo confirm("Do you like big dialogues?", "Yes\rYes\r ... ")

                request for vertical layout?
              • Vince Negri
                ... That would be the v in guioptions(!) Legal Disclaimer: Any views expressed by the sender of this message are not necessarily those of Application
                Message 7 of 17 , Mar 15, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Marcin Dalecki wrote:
                  > What about the hidden semantics of letting explicity
                  > echo confirm("Do you like big dialogues?", "Yes\rYes\r ... ")
                  > request for vertical layout?

                  That would be the 'v' in guioptions(!)



                  Legal Disclaimer: Any views expressed by the sender of this message are
                  not necessarily those of Application Solutions Ltd. Information in this
                  e-mail may be confidential and is for the use of the intended recipient
                  only, no mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise such
                  privilege. Please advise the sender if you receive this e-mail by mistake.
                • Marcin Dalecki
                  ... Quoting from the documentation: v Use a vertical button layout for dialogs. When not included, a horizontal layout is preferred, but when it doesn t fit
                  Message 8 of 17 , Mar 15, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Vince Negri wrote:
                    >
                    > > Marcin Dalecki wrote:
                    > > What about the hidden semantics of letting explicity
                    > > echo confirm("Do you like big dialogues?", "Yes\rYes\r ... ")
                    > > request for vertical layout?
                    >
                    > That would be the 'v' in guioptions(!)

                    Quoting from the documentation:

                    'v' Use a vertical button layout for dialogs. When not included,
                    a horizontal layout is preferred, but when it doesn't fit a
                    vertical layout is used anyway.

                    Right... silly - this is something one should be able to decide
                    about on a *per dialogue* basis. I think my simple "of the hook" idea
                    provides a more logical solution. This 'v' is one option too much it should
                    be removed alltogether.

                    Any way many thank's for the hint.
                  • Ralf Arens
                    ... I think there is. As I alreadey posted, I wrote some functions for Ispell. One is for spelling a single word. Try e.g. this one: ~ % echo gon | ispell -a
                    Message 9 of 17 , Mar 15, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      * Marcin Dalecki [2000-03-15 13:59]:
                      > Vince Negri wrote:

                      >>> Andy Kahn quaked:
                      >>> Egad, the thought of having a
                      >>> dialog box with more than 10 buttons is terrifying.

                      >> Such abominations already exist in Win32/Win16...

                      > Looks funny. However *there* actully may be
                      > legitimate use for it.

                      I think there is. As I alreadey posted, I wrote some functions for
                      Ispell. One is for spelling a single word. Try e.g. this one:

                      ~ % echo "gon" | ispell -a
                      @(#) International Ispell Version 3.1.20 10/10/95
                      & gon 23 0: con, don, gin, go, Goa, gob, god, gone, gong, got, gown, gun, hon,
                      ion, Jon, Mon, non, on, Ron, son, ton, won, yon

                      There are 23 possibilites, I doesn't look nice but I can't help it.


                      Ciao,
                      Ralf

                      --
                      /¯\
                      \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Say NO to HTML in email and news
                      X Sag NEIN zu HTML in EMail und News
                      / \
                    • Andy Kahn
                      ... I too have 1600x1200, but I don t like seeing more than 3-5 buttons anyway. Too much input is too confusing for me... ... Yes, I m pretty sure I still
                      Message 10 of 17 , Mar 15, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > Right. But if you ask for it ... you should get it 8-).
                        > I guess my 1600x1200 resolution sceen could present about 50
                        > buttons in line maximally.

                        I too have 1600x1200, but I don't like seeing more than 3-5 buttons
                        anyway. Too much input is too confusing for me...


                        > BTW. Did you maintan you configuration notebook dialogue code,
                        > which did "rejected" officially but I found personlly to
                        > be more convenient then the pseudo input sheet we have now
                        > instead.

                        Yes, I'm pretty sure I still have it somewhere. Do you need it? I
                        could make a patch against 5.6 and send it to the mailing list.
                        --andy
                      • Martin Dalecki
                        ... Sure Andy no problem here. I just think that in some very special super rare cases someone may just like to have this feature. (Like having the ability to
                        Message 11 of 17 , Mar 15, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Andy Kahn wrote:
                          >
                          > > Right. But if you ask for it ... you should get it 8-).
                          > > I guess my 1600x1200 resolution sceen could present about 50
                          > > buttons in line maximally.
                          >
                          > I too have 1600x1200, but I don't like seeing more than 3-5 buttons
                          > anyway. Too much input is too confusing for me...

                          Sure Andy no problem here. I just think that in some very special super
                          rare cases someone may just like to have this feature.
                          (Like having the ability to for example abuse the whole as a kind
                          for dynamically created selection list for whathever he want's)
                          And you know in terms of code/space/coding time it didn't cost me
                          more then just about 15 minutes...

                          >
                          > > BTW. Did you maintan you configuration notebook dialogue code,
                          > > which did "rejected" officially but I found personlly to
                          > > be more convenient then the pseudo input sheet we have now
                          > > instead.
                          >
                          > Yes, I'm pretty sure I still have it somewhere. Do you need it? I
                          > could make a patch against 5.6 and send it to the mailing list.

                          Yes I would appreciate it, since I'm quite busy currently just
                          implementing all what *I* would personally like to see inside of VIM:

                          1. Proper LOCALE and i18n stuff support. (prio 1 for me, mostly done)
                          2. Much smoother GUI usability. (You know those days just ssh and X11
                          forwading
                          doesn't get me to use plain term apps much anylonger now...)

                          And the GUI based configuration thingee was much much saner in this
                          context
                          in my oppinion then what we currently have... (What we currently have is
                          fine for terminal based apps, but is't just a bad joke if you run the
                          GUI...)

                          --
                          Marcin Dalecki
                        • Andy Kahn
                          On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:25:59PM +0100, Martin Dalecki wrote: ... Ok, here s the patch. It is based on vim-5.6, plus all current/official patches (#1 to
                          Message 12 of 17 , Mar 15, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:25:59PM +0100, Martin Dalecki wrote:
                            ...
                            > > > BTW. Did you maintan you configuration notebook dialogue code,
                            > > > which did "rejected" officially but I found personlly to
                            > > > be more convenient then the pseudo input sheet we have now
                            > > > instead.
                            > >
                            > > Yes, I'm pretty sure I still have it somewhere. Do you need it? I
                            > > could make a patch against 5.6 and send it to the mailing list.
                            >
                            > Yes I would appreciate it, since I'm quite busy currently just
                            > implementing all what *I* would personally like to see inside of VIM:

                            Ok, here's the patch. It is based on vim-5.6, plus all
                            current/official patches (#1 to #12). After applying the patch and
                            recompiling, the command to activate the config dialog inside vim is
                            ":config".

                            (I'm also attaching a small screenshot for those who are curious what
                            this patch does.)

                            I also have a patch that implements a GTK gui version of the buffers
                            list. That is, doing ":ls" will popup a gui dialog box with all the
                            open buffers. There are still some kinks in this though, which is why
                            I'm not including it here. If you (or anyone else) is interested, let
                            me know and I'll post the patch.

                            regards,
                            --andy
                          • Andy Kahn
                            On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:25:59PM +0100, Martin Dalecki wrote: ... For the most part, I agree with you, and let me expand on that topic a bit more. (In your
                            Message 13 of 17 , Mar 15, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:25:59PM +0100, Martin Dalecki wrote:
                              ...
                              > And the GUI based configuration thingee was much much saner in this
                              > context
                              > in my oppinion then what we currently have... (What we currently have is
                              > fine for terminal based apps, but is't just a bad joke if you run the
                              > GUI...)

                              For the most part, I agree with you, and let me expand on that topic a
                              bit more. (In your case, you can ignore this email, because I'm
                              probably preaching to the choir, but maybe it will get others on the
                              mailing list to agrree.)

                              << Start of long rant. Please don't quote the whole thing unless you
                              have a lot to say. :) >>

                              For a gui based editor, there are some things a gui is really really
                              good at, but doing the same in "text mode" is just plain clunky.

                              The preferences/configuration option is one of these. The other is
                              the help system. With a gui interface, a much more powerful and
                              easier to use dialog could be made available for both.

                              Look at the current methods:

                              - for configuration, source $VIMRUNTIME/optwin.vim and "edit" a text
                              file.
                              - for the help system, enable "wild" menus, type ":h" and a partial
                              word, then hit tab until you find what you want.

                              With the number of options available in vim, I typically spend a lot
                              more time than I want to whenever I need to investiage or find
                              something.

                              Both methods work, and are very useful for a purely text based system,
                              but in a gui, they're just too clumsy.

                              Yes, and I know we've had this discussion in the past, and the
                              rationale for doing things the way they are currently done is even
                              documented (see ":h design-goals", ":h design-multi-platform", et al).
                              I'll even quote from ":h design-not" :

                              - Vim is not a fancy GUI editor that tries to look nice at the cost of
                              being less consistent over all platforms. But functional GUI features are
                              welcomed.

                              But it's always a trade-off for one option over another. In the gui
                              case, something really needs to be done to improve it, else there's
                              little point in providing a gui interface that's handicapped.
                              --andy
                            • Robert Webb
                              ... The V option should be there, but only as a user-preference, ie some users may prefer to always have a vertical layout (I thought this was what it was
                              Message 14 of 17 , Mar 16, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > Vince Negri wrote:
                                > >
                                > > > Marcin Dalecki wrote:
                                > > > What about the hidden semantics of letting explicity
                                > > > echo confirm("Do you like big dialogues?", "Yes\rYes\r ... ")
                                > > > request for vertical layout?
                                > >
                                > > That would be the 'v' in guioptions(!)
                                >
                                > Quoting from the documentation:
                                >
                                > 'v' Use a vertical button layout for dialogs. When not
                                > included,
                                > a horizontal layout is preferred, but when it doesn't fit a
                                > vertical layout is used anyway.
                                >
                                > Right... silly - this is something one should be able to decide
                                > about on a *per dialogue* basis. I think my simple "of the hook" idea
                                > provides a more logical solution. This 'v' is one option too much
                                > it should be removed alltogether.

                                The "V" option should be there, but only as a user-preference, ie some users
                                may prefer to always have a vertical layout (I thought this was what it was
                                for). Within a script you shouldn't have to use it. Didn't we have a
                                :vconfirm() command and a vconfirm() function at some point to force
                                vertical layout? I remember them being talked about, but maybe that was all
                                (although I feel sure they existed at some stage!). Wouldn't these be
                                perfect? For something like the ispell script, you probably want to always
                                use a vertical layout.

                                Rob.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.