Re: Scripting update - News flash

On Sunday 21 July 2002 16:40, Anders Lund wrote:
> On Saturday 20 July 2002 10:36, Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> > Yes, but the new naming is at least unique and shows to which
> > document/view the interface belongs, the current interface nummer must
> > not mach the corresponding view/document number.
>
> Well, wouldn't it be better to have an optional id # in the interfaces
> CTOR's? Or would that be BIC?
We could add a new constructor which takes the prefix, yes, that would be BC
(if we let the old constructor live)

At least I think that is BC, but asking would cost nothing.

>
> /me starts hating the BC police:(
As even kvim starts using ktexteditor, BC seems to be quiet important (not that I like kvim,
but killing their and others work is not nice ;P) (not that that would stop me ;))


>
> If having the setID method is the only way to ensure that an interface has
> a sane name, at least just make the name
> "<interfacename>#<(document|view)number>", so that constructing the correct
> string is easy and safe.
You mean just

EditInterface#234 (for editinterface of document 234) ?

As some interfaces are for both document and views that would not be unique.

But we can speak about stuff like

D#1223-EditInterface

V#234-123-EditInterface

which would be shorter too

>
> On a side note, since all those interface classes are basically all the
> same, wouldn't it be possible to use a base class for them?
We could, but that won't change the naming problem (beside it would be BIC).

>
> -anders
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kde-kant mailing list
> kde-kant@
> http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-kant

-- 
Christoph Cullmann
Kate/KDE developer
[email protected]
http://kate.kde.org