smallB's suggestions

[smallB]

1. Folding is misleading. It leaves left top most bracket. It looks like closing bracket is missing. I think that this style of collapsing would be more obvious:

Having:

Code

for (auto i : c)
{
//body
}

After collapsing body of for

Code

for [...] 

- the part [ ... ] is collapsed body of for
or:

Code

for (auto i : c)
[ ... ]

- collapsed body

[oBFusCATed]

This is a scintilla feature ask on their mailing list if this style is supported, if it is we can try to enable it.
But my opinion is that this is pretty ugly (the VStudio style) and I like the current style pretty much, especially the horizontal line...

one suggestion: write all your features requests in a text file and after you've used C::B for a while post the ones you still feel are relevant and useful.

[smallB]

@Obfuscated, that's ok, I didn't know (still don't) how am I suppose to recognize which is cb feature and which one is scintilla?
Anyway, I already have txt file with features request and I do filter them before I post them here.

[smallB]

2. Compiler option - make it explicitly visible
Guys, now when I set compiler options like -Wall it is not obvious at all which warnings are enabled. I know that it suppose to mean "all" but there is -Wextra so it looks like -Wall is not all at all
What I'm driving at is that if I i.e. select -Wall, it would be quite a helpful if all those warnings would be listed somewhere (next tab named: "command line", perhaps?).
Also for some green horn like me it is not obvious at all if certain switches are exclusive or not. Example:
Can I use -std=c++0x with -std=c++98? Or only one there may be selected? Again, if so the other one should be disabled.
Also If I select -Wall then I think quite reasonable is that all listed warnings which actually are "within" -Wall should also be ticked automatically + listed on tab named command line.
Thanks.

[oBFusCATed]

I already have txt file with features request and I do filter them before I post them here.

Increase the threshold, the filter is not working good enough :lol:

-Wall changes enabled warnings every gcc release, so we can't do what you propose.
The checkboxes are for convenience only.
And:
1. you're supposed to know what you're doing.
2. you're supposed to know what every option does, before setting it, so go read the gcc docs before setting them

[smallB]

@Obfuscated about this un/folding and horizontal line.
I also like the idea with this horizontal line. But I think having extra bracket visible could be (by some people) seen as a confusing/misleading. What your opinion on that?

[oBFusCATed]

Get used to it:)

[smallB]

Now, seriously about my suggestions in general. Guys, I really want only help (currently just by giving suggestions which can be ignored if not suitable). I've started giving those suggestions because:
1. I see on this forum "Development
 Anything concerning development of Code::Blocks. Regular users should use the other forums for support/help/suggestions."
2. On the cb starting page I see: "Request new feature"

In view of the above I get the impression that suggestions/requests are welcome.
 
But unfortunately after few comments, notably from obfuscated and neil butterworth I'm getting the impression that they are not.
So level with me, I'm a big boy and I won't get offended - do you mean what you say when you're asking/announcing possibilities of filing suggestions/requests or you don't really need/want them?
Regards

[smallB]

Get used to it:)

I'd rather improve something which doesn't work as *I* would like than get use to it. It's just the way I am.

[smallB]

I already have txt file with features request and I do filter them before I post them here.

Increase the threshold, the filter is not working good enough :lol:

-Wall changes enabled warnings every gcc release, so we can't do what you propose.
The checkboxes are for convenience only.
And:
1. you're supposed to know what you're doing.

Yes, but seeing which options are enabled would allow me to SEE what I already did
[quote ]
2. you're supposed to know what every option does, before setting it, so go read the gcc docs before setting them
[/quote]
Agreed but again, seeing certain options would allow me to CHECK what this particular option does an this way educate myself.

[oBFusCATed]

PLEASE DON'T SHOUT!

The only way to tell which sub-options are enabled by -Wall is to read the gcc docs for your release of the compiler.

[smallB]

@Obfuscated and where did I shout? Mind telling me?

[Jenna]

@smallB:
many (or most) of your suggestions just show, that yoiu are neither an experienced programmer, nor an experienced user of C::B.

We (moderators and admins) have to read each and every post due to legal reasons (server in germany).

And reading many of your posts is just a waste of time in my opinion.
This might sound harsh but it is not meant to be offending.
I spent many times in one of your threads (stray \216) and at the end it turns out to be a misconfiguration, because you did not read the manual of the compiler you use.
In the same time I could have spent time with my family or worked on C::B to improve it or do "realworld" work to earn money.

[smallB]

@jens fair enough, won't hear any suggestion from me again. No problem.

[Jenna]

@jens fair enough, won't hear any suggestion from me again. No problem.

You like to misunderstand others don't you ?

@smallB:
many (or most) of your suggestions just show, that you are neither an experienced programmer, nor an experienced user of C::B.

That does not mean that suggestions (of you and others) are not welcome.

But as others told you, you should collect your suggestions, work with C::B for a while, read the manual, see whether your suggestions are real improvements, whether it can probably be done in another way, and whether another way is more flexible and therefor better for many developpers.

And be sure, that the issues you find are real C::b issues and not compiler/linker issues.

Than search the forum and the web for related posts, mybe it was discussed already.

And as last step post your suggestions here.