On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Ville M. Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think having the native widgets handle as many events as possible is > the right way to go, only making exceptions when we really, really > want to. It's the free lunch I have no problem with this statement in general, but neither do I want to lose essential features of Leo. Imo, the essential features at risk are: 1. Specifying key bindings for all of Leo's commands. In theory, I am willing to relax this requirement, but I would much rather not. In particular, bindings for printable characters appear to be causing havoc: they are being inserted in the widget and later firing key events. Leo typically has bindings for tab and period, and we might be able to live with QScintilla's tab handling and auto-completion. But decreeing that there will be no bindings to printable characters kills the vim-like bindings project, and I'm not willing to do that for the sake of mere simplicity of code. 2. Being able to drive the text widget from Leo's core. Leo has many command that do this. It is these commands, and not just their unit tests, that I am unwilling to give up. I spent months making these commands work smoothly and integrating them into Leo's core. **No way** am I going to give them up to make the qt gui programming easier. Leo is pretty close to an ultimate test of any gui toolkit. I'm not discouraged (so far) by the problems I seem to have found, mainly because the qt people have been helpful and willing to admit that there are problems. I expected a lot of work to make the qtGui plugin work properly. The fact that prototyping techniques are easy, and true integration with Leo's core is much harder does not, by itself, mean much to me. > It is often safe to assume that things work "right" by default (with > Qt, and to some extent scintilla), and any apparent deviations from > that are probably bugs or misunderstandings on the users part. Bugs and misunderstandings pretty much cover the possibilities :-) I've had some major misunderstandings in the past with Tk. It took me years to understand that *all* Tk text ends with an "extra" newline, so it was *always* safe to ignore it. That was a major, major stupidity on my part. Perhaps I'm being equally stupid in some way with qt. If so, I think the qt people (or you) will set me right. But let's be clear, the qt people have already stated that I have found bugs in qt, and have promised to fix those bugs. The mess with key events happening after the scintilla widget has changed as the result of that key event looks like a major bug in QScintilla. As you say, there are two possibilities. Either I am completely confused, and the traces which appear to clearly show the situation as I have described do not, in fact, show any such thing, or there is a bug in QScintilla. Either way, I intend to understand what is happening. Avoiding this apparent bug (and others) by throwing away large parts of Leo's capabilities has no appeal to me. Edward --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
