On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
How about copying stuff from those and pasting it as introductory
comments in a suitable source file?
An even lazier approach would be to let those interested to just look at the
code ;-).
Lazier for you, but more work for many others;-) In addition, there's an
ulterior motive to my approach: Some documentation of the intended
structure/design ends up in the source code rather than hidden in the
commit messages or the developers' list. Documentation in the code is
_very_ helpful to developers trying to understand what it does (and what
it is intended to do -- these doen't necessarily coincide..).
I repeat again: the changes are not that complicated. Most of the patch
is about:
- bv->buffer() which becomes bv.buffer()
- all test on nullity of bv->buffer() are obviously deleted.
These changes even I could see, but the extent hides non-trivial changes
such as those you describe below. I could have reviewed bv->buffer() to
bv.buffer(), but for other changes I don't know enough about the code. Me
reviewing only parts of a patch is a waste of time - hence separate
patches can help. A small patch requires less effort and thus increases
the likelyhood someone reiews it. A small scope of a patch (or a simple
patch) increase the number of developers able to review it.
I'm pretty sure you already understood this, but better safe than sorry
and apologies for wasting bandwith and time.
Best regards
/Christian
I replaced the home made Tabbar with a proper QTabWidget. This means
that, for Buffer switching, I transfered the decision logic from the
kernel to the frontend. Clicking on a Tab to do a Buffer-switch won't
even trigger an LFUN_BUFFER_SWITCH. A menu triggered LFUN_BUFFER_SWITCH
will simply ask the frontend to switch to _the_ wWorkArea that is
currently displaying this asked Buffer. If the WorkArea is not there, it
will be created automatically by the frontend, transparently to the
kernel.
--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
