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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.