Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development

"Targets" v. "Projects" and (attached|workspace) property sheets

<< < (2/5) > >>

280Z28:
Visual Studio has this thing where C code is colored for keywords and comments. They call it "syntax highlighting." I've attached a screenshot.

Visual Studio has this feature, and I want Code::Blocks to have it too. Therefore, I want Code::Blocks to be Visual Studio??  :?

My original post developed concepts in a logical manner, was not aggressive. I gave pros and cons I've experienced with things, and gave visual and textual examples of how things could proceed. I did not set a timeline for this, and I did not post in the forum for SVN head discussions. In fact, in my timeline thread earlier I stated attachable property sheets as something I want to see in 2.0, not earlier. You two need to step back for a minute and re-read my posts. Stop assuming I'm attacking you and/or saying bad things about your project.

You should know by now I want to see C::B become a great editor. Please try to treat me and my posts as someone also trying to achieve that goal. If you are looking for someone who just likes to complain, I'm sure I can find other posts on this forum from people who like to do so.

[attachment deleted by admin]

mandrav:

--- Quote from: 280Z28 on December 29, 2005, 10:15:34 pm ---Visual Studio has this thing where C code is colored for keywords and comments. They call it "syntax highlighting." I've attached a screenshot.

Visual Studio has this feature, and I want Code::Blocks to have it too. Therefore, I want Code::Blocks to be Visual Studio??  :?

--- End quote ---

Now, who's being sarcastic here?  :?


--- Quote from: 280Z28 on December 29, 2005, 10:15:34 pm ---You two need to step back for a minute and re-read my posts. Stop assuming I'm attacking you and/or saying bad things about your project.

--- End quote ---

No, you need to step back and re-read our posts. No one is attacking you. I just explained to you that the difference between targets and configurations is conceptual only. I also told you to wait for the compiler redesign.
Where 's the attack in these?!?

And if you 've taken my comment on cloning VisualStudio as an attack, then what can I say? When you 're talking about creating ".props" to replicate ".vsprops" am I wrong in deducing you want to make C::B behave exactly like VS?

You should really calm down. Not everyone is against you and not everyone is attacking you...  :roll: :|

280Z28:
You said I was being confused. But I was talking about a project file, not people. Instead, you could have said "The project file is done that way for _____ reason" and left comments about me out of it. ".props" could be anything, but it is a properties file and that's what made sense. This isn't about Visual Studio so much as it's about a concept. I just had VS there for a handy screenshot of such a feature in action.

I don't want it to behave exactly like VS. Among other things, I don't like how VS doesn't allow you to have a property sheet apply to a project as opposed to just individual targets.

You said "Finally, you surely can't expect this to change any time soon, do you? This discussion will be more appropriate when the time comes for the compiler framework redesign." I would have been less aggrivated by something like this:

"We've been thinking about a compiler framework design sometime after 1.0. Property sheets are an interesting idea that might be included at that time, we'll have to see."

280Z28:
The policy combo boxes are especially good if you want to apply properties to most but not all targets, but don't offer something like "Append/Prepend the options to ones from xxx target in another project." That would actually accomplish the feature set I want. It'd be a somewhat clumsy solution, but with the bit of a learning curve covered it would be sufficient until something better came along.

mandrav:
I just deleted a long post I wrote to answer. You know why? It's not worth it.
I 'm not gonna argue with you. I have more important things to do than having a dispute through the internet.
Feel free to think that I attacked you. I didn't but hey, what you think is more important to you. You 're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.

Over and out.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page