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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.