[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kwrite-devel
Subject: Re: qt4.xml -> qt.xml
From: Andrey Matveyakin <a.matveyakin () gmail ! com>
Date: 2014-02-23 10:43:53
Message-ID: CAACAhsvvkWn0Z94MtEN8+CRHTyg0Hx8vU=ByhaUwCngVuX1L8w () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
Hi,
I agree with Milian and Sven. There is no big syntactic difference between
Qt4 and Qt5. Many programs cannot be even classified as Qt4- or
Qt5-applications. For example, in a project I work on now, we have several
ifdef's to make program compile and work nicely both with Qt4 and Qt5.
And yes, IMO it is really troublesome to have separate highlight files for
C++03, C++11, C++14, C++03/Qt4, C++11/Qt4, C++14/Qt4, C++03/Qt5, C++11/Qt5,
C++14/Qt5.
Not sure if we should go beyond just C++ and C++/Qt variants.
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Sven Brauch <svenbrauch@googlemail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Saturday 22 February 2014 18:42:13 Milian Wolff wrote:
> > Opinions?
> I agree with you. The differences between languages are minimal on the kate
> highlighting level and do not justify the extra pain for users and
> developers
> which is caused by maintaining two versions of the highlighting files.
>
> In Python, yes, the differences are very noticeable, but barely any of it
> can
> be detected on the highlighter level. Especially since people often write
> Python 3 compat layers nowadays to have Python 3 functions available in
> Python
> 2 code too, which makes the distinction extra useless.
>
> That something is highlighted by far doesn't mean it can indeed be used
> anyways. I can come up with hundreds of cases where something is
> highlighted
> but can't be used like that. The kate highlighting is a rough help for
> reading
> code, not a semantics checker.
>
> I think the distinction between the C++ highlighter and the C++/Qt
> highlighter
> is useless already. Who cares about the occasional oddity of having a Qt
> keyword highlighted somewhere -- I certainly don't. By splitting it into a
> C++
> and a C++/Qt highlighter and making the C++ one default you'll take Qt
> highlighting away from 90% of users who will be too lazy or too stupid (in
> the
> "I didn't know that existed" sense) to change to the Qt one. Why not at
> least
> have the Qt one be the default, btw? People who care can then change away
> from
> it and that will affect less people than the other way round.
> .kateconfig files are imo not an argument, because -- let's face it -- most
> people are not going to use them. It pushes the "Kate as an IDE" use case,
> which is certainly nice for some people but the majority of users will not
> use
> kate like that in the forseeable future (also, is this IDE use case now
> kate's
> new main focus? I hope not). And I'd like highlighting to be as good as
> possible for them out-of-the-box.
>
> Greetings!
> _______________________________________________
> KWrite-Devel mailing list
> KWrite-Devel@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kwrite-devel
>
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr">Hi,<br><br>I agree with Milian and Sven. There is no big syntactic \
difference between Qt4 and Qt5. Many programs cannot be even classified as Qt4- or \
Qt5-applications. For example, in a project I work on now, we have several \
ifdef's to make program compile and work nicely both with Qt4 and Qt5.<br> \
<br>And yes, IMO it is really troublesome to have separate highlight files for C++03, \
C++11, C++14, C++03/Qt4, C++11/Qt4, C++14/Qt4, C++03/Qt5, C++11/Qt5, \
C++14/Qt5.<br><br>Not sure if we should go beyond just C++ and C++/Qt variants.<br> \
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 \
at 1:16 PM, Sven Brauch <span dir="ltr"><<a \
href="mailto:svenbrauch@googlemail.com" \
target="_blank">svenbrauch@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br> <br>
On Saturday 22 February 2014 18:42:13 Milian Wolff wrote:<br>
> Opinions?<br>
I agree with you. The differences between languages are minimal on the kate<br>
highlighting level and do not justify the extra pain for users and developers<br>
which is caused by maintaining two versions of the highlighting files.<br>
<br>
In Python, yes, the differences are very noticeable, but barely any of it can<br>
be detected on the highlighter level. Especially since people often write<br>
Python 3 compat layers nowadays to have Python 3 functions available in Python<br>
2 code too, which makes the distinction extra useless.<br>
<br>
That something is highlighted by far doesn't mean it can indeed be used<br>
anyways. I can come up with hundreds of cases where something is highlighted<br>
but can't be used like that. The kate highlighting is a rough help for \
reading<br> code, not a semantics checker.<br>
<br>
I think the distinction between the C++ highlighter and the C++/Qt highlighter<br>
is useless already. Who cares about the occasional oddity of having a Qt<br>
keyword highlighted somewhere -- I certainly don't. By splitting it into a \
C++<br> and a C++/Qt highlighter and making the C++ one default you'll take \
Qt<br> highlighting away from 90% of users who will be too lazy or too stupid (in \
the<br> "I didn't know that existed" sense) to change to the Qt one. \
Why not at least<br> have the Qt one be the default, btw? People who care can then \
change away from<br> it and that will affect less people than the other way \
round.<br>
.kateconfig files are imo not an argument, because -- let's face it -- most<br>
people are not going to use them. It pushes the "Kate as an IDE" use \
case,<br> which is certainly nice for some people but the majority of users will not \
use<br> kate like that in the forseeable future (also, is this IDE use case now \
kate's<br> new main focus? I hope not). And I'd like highlighting to be as \
good as<br> possible for them out-of-the-box.<br>
<br>
Greetings!<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div \
class="h5">_______________________________________________<br> KWrite-Devel mailing \
list<br> <a href="mailto:KWrite-Devel@kde.org">KWrite-Devel@kde.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kwrite-devel" \
target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kwrite-devel</a><br> \
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
_______________________________________________
KWrite-Devel mailing list
KWrite-Devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kwrite-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic