suggestion for C::B

[lfm]

The width of line numbers colume is too large, not good - look.
Thanks.
 

[takeshimiya]

The width of line numbers colume is too large, not good - look.

It's a wxScintilla feature request, not a Code::Blocks one.

Please send a feature request here: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=51305&atid=462819
or send a mail to Otto Wyss, the wxScintilla author: wyo at users.sourceforge.net

[thomas]

It's a wxScintilla feature request, not a Code::Blocks one.

This has little to do with wxScintilla, as the width of the margin can be set arbitrarily by the application. We are setting the width of the margin to accomodate 6 digits.
As an example of a Scintilla based applicatin which does it differently, SciTE adjusts the margin width dynamically, which I perceive extremely disturbing.

If you are unhappy with the margin's width, feel free to modify cbEditor.cpp, add
m_pControl->SetMarginWidth(0, desiredWidth); as the last line of  cbEditor::cbEditor().

However, I see no reason why we should change the width in the code base or make it runtime-configurable. It is good as it is for most people, and not every property has to be configurable just for the sake of tweaking.

[takeshimiya]

It's a wxScintilla feature request, not a Code::Blocks one.

This has little to do with wxScintilla, as the width of the margin can be set arbitrarily by the application.

Great, I didn't know.

As an example of a Scintilla based applicatin which does it differently, SciTE adjusts the margin width dynamically, which I perceive extremely disturbing.

Thanks for the info, I find "extremely disturbing" not setting the width dynamically and always wondered why it wasn't behaving like SciTE (that's why I thought it was wxScintilla...)

However, I see no reason why we should change the width in the code base or make it runtime-configurable.

The above and this very thread is a good reason now.  :wink:

It is good as it is for most people, and not every property has to be configurable just for the sake of tweaking.

I agree that not every property has to be configurable just for the sake of tweaking (in fact I would preffer dynamically adjusting it without any option to disable it), but I strongly disagree about the "It is good as it is for most people" part.

So, it's personal preference, not everyone haves to like everything you like. In those cases is where an option is the right thing.
Thank you for your patience.

[lfm]

my wish: The width of line numbers column become an option of "Settings/Editor "

[Game_Ender]

However, I see no reason why we should change the width in the code base or make it runtime-configurable. It is good as it is for most people, and not every property has to be configurable just for the sake of tweaking.

I disagree, it has always seemed like a bug to me too, not really a "feature".  I agree with Takeshi and ifm, I think it should be an option, but its definitely not a pressing issue.

[sethjackson]

However, I see no reason why we should change the width in the code base or make it runtime-configurable. It is good as it is for most people, and not every property has to be configurable just for the sake of tweaking.

I disagree, it has always seemed like a bug to me too, not really a "feature".  I agree with Takeshi and ifm, I think it should be an option, but its definitely not a pressing issue.

I agree.

[Defender]

I would also like a dynamic adjusting

[Game_Ender]

I have added to and updated Defenders patch to take into account the actual text size, to use the configuration file, and to put an option in the editor dialog.  It is patch #1072.

[lfm]

I have added to and updated Defenders patch to take into account the actual text size, to use the configuration file, and to put an option in the editor dialog.  It is patch #1072.

I only use the Nightly Builds (not SVN), is it applied to Nightly Builds ?

[Game_Ender]

I only use the Nightly Builds (not SVN), is it applied to Nightly Builds ?

No, but after a few more small changes it will hopefully be accepted.  It is also important to note that revision 2485 has the ability for you to manually adjust the size, but only in pixels.  My patch will be updated to allow you to have the number dynamically adjusted or set a fixed number of digits to be displayed.

[Defender]

I only use the Nightly Builds (not SVN), is it applied to Nightly Builds ?

No, but after a few more small changes it will hopefully be accepted.  It is also important to note that revision 2485 has the ability for you to manually adjust the size, but only in pixels.  My patch will be updated to allow you to have the number dynamically adjusted or set a fixed number of digits to be displayed.

Hello!
I find, that it is better to enter the width in pixels, because those, who don't use the dynamic setting option, (which I find very convenient), they want the full control over the width setting, not just a platform-dependent semi-variable width.
But that's just my opinion, we can duscuss it here, that is the purpose of this board

Defender

[Defender]

Patch updated to grey out the spincontrol: #1074

[Game_Ender]

I find, that it is better to enter the width in pixels, because those, who don't use the dynamic setting option, (which I find very convenient), they want the full control over the width setting, not just a platform-dependent semi-variable width.
But that's just my opinion, we can duscuss it here, that is the purpose of this board

That is a good point, but what is the purpose of controlling the margin width to the pixel in the first place? I would assume most people will just futz with number until it shows 6, 5, 4 or so characters anyways.  Do you want the margin to show 4.25 characters?  I am guessing the users wants to force the number of characters shown in the first place.

[Defender]

I thought about it, and there is really no big reason to handle the width in pixels instead of chars.
Great community btw