On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 09:22:27AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > QSettings gives us e.g. (transparent) access to the Windows registry, > where all the Window native programs put there configuration stuff and > "everybody" expects it. When not using Qt we've a choice of either > programming this access ourselves or remain some kind of sevond class > citizen by doing thing not "the proper way".
Or we can just provide a simple interface from lyxrc that uses Qt if the frontend has something. This is just not difficult to do. > > Furthermore, they encourage commingling of frontend code with logic > > code, which is just a bad idea. > > Well, Qt 4.0 uses MVC as well. Um, we're not ready to use Qt 4, and even if we were, and knowing Qt as well as I do, I expect its attempt at MVC is still going to be "our way or the highway". > > Do you really think the GUI logic was clearer when xforms lived in > > src/ instead of src/frontends/qt2/ ? > > No. And I am not proposing to merge them again. BUt I am against e.g. > having MenuBackend.C & Co. What, because of the huge maintenance burden? You seem to be the only one here who thinks this stuff is a problem, and I honestly don't understand why. Especially since, AFAIK, most of the work you've done has been on mathed and the LyX core, and not much on GUII or the frontends. Surely you agree that the hard, time consuming stuff is in the core, and it always has been? As Angus (I think) pointed out the only major 1.5 feature I can think of that would need a non-trivial amount of GUII work would be the char styles proposal I outlined some time ago. > > Um, why not? I implemented and tested rip-off toolbars a long time > > ago, and it worked fine. I turned it off because they're a sucky > > gimmick. > > "People" expect them. I am not font of it either. If we use Qt, we just > get them for free and nobody is hurt. I already said we already *have* them, and I explicitly turn them off. Your example is irrelevant. regards john
