I have compiled rev1833 and all was fine :), but when after starting C::B, I have remarked a problem in the menu Settings. The problem is that I have only:
- Environment
- Editor
- Global variables
I have not Debugger and Plugins.
Michael
I have compiled rev1833 and all was fine :), but when after starting C::B, I have remarked a problem in the menu Settings. The problem is that I have only:
- Environment
- Editor
- Global variables
I have not Debugger and Plugins.
Michael
The whole idea with the coming changes is to move those entries and centralize configuration. I just wonder if the button or menu item is already somewhere... Gonna compile r1833 right now :)
They're in the environment setting dialog.
Yeah, looks nice, but now I wonder if they could add a button in the toolbar to get quick acess to it :)
Yeah, looks nice, but now I wonder if they could add a button in the toolbar to get quick acess to it :)
Keep on wondering ;)
The full power has not yet being unveiled...
Rick and I suggest centering the new Settings dialog. Could that single line of code be added? :)
looks great.
don't want to spoil the fun, aren't those icons in the settings dialog, not a bit too big ??
The icons are GIANT :lol:. I'll recommend 32x32, max limit 64x64.
The icons are GIANT :lol:. I'll recommend 32x32, max limit 64x64.
80x80 is enough of a challenge already.
However, you are not forced to stick with this, you can always design your own 48x48 icon set and replace the icons if you don't like the stock set :)
wxImageList* images = new wxImageList(80, 80);
Choose your destiny. 8)
[screenshots]
Choose your destiny. 8)
IMHO 48x48 or 64x64 would be good :D.
Anyway, I feel a bit uncomfortable that the setting of plugins has been put within the Environment settings. IMHO, it would be better to let plugin outside as a separate entry (just to separate C::B core configuration from plugins configuration). Moreover, if more plugins would be added this would make the list rather huge and not so friendly if you would like to change the option of one plugin. May it would be possible to do as e.g., Eclipse. Main category --> collapsed --> sub-categories and so one.
Michael
Anyway, I feel a bit uncomfortable that the setting of plugins has been put within the Environment settings. IMHO, it would be better to let plugin outside as a separate entry (just to separate C::B core configuration from plugins configuration). Moreover, if more plugins would be added this would make the list rather huge and not so friendly if you would like to change the option of one plugin. May it would be possible to do as e.g., Eclipse. Main category --> collapsed --> sub-categories and so one.Anyways, I think something like aMule (uses wxWidgets) uses is more comfortable (no need to scroll):
Or if having "Plugin Categories", a TreeCtrl would be better even. :)
Would this be a bad time to mention that those icons don't look like that on Windows 2000? There are black boxes around them. Lousy Alpha transparancy support strikes again. :?Yes it would, but don't worry, everybody else is discussing this stuff too, although they had been told it is not finished... :lol:
Anyway, I feel a bit uncomfortable that the setting of plugins has been put within the Environment settings.At the risk of being repetitive... it is not finished yet. A couple of things will still be subject to change. Very likely, plugins will also be classified in some manner. Compiler and debugger, for example, although technically plugins, are as good as "core", so they should not be hidden among a multitude of other plugins in the end.
Heh, you wanted it to be that easy, but that requieres a full recompile: :)Au contraire, mon capitaine.
Anyway, I feel a bit uncomfortable that the setting of plugins has been put within the Environment settings.At the risk of being repetitive... it is not finished yet. A couple of things will still be subject to change. Very likely, plugins will also be classified in some manner. Compiler and debugger, for example, although technically plugins, are as good as "core", so they should not be hidden among a multitude of other plugins in the end.
Moving all non-core plugins to a separate dialog is possible, and likely to be done. At the present time, this is still work in progress.
we can remove transparency alltogether and blend the icons against the background colour.Hardcoding (blending) to white colour will look ok on Windows 2000, but they will look really horrible in other systems that haves the background colour of the ListBook different. For example, in the (future) wxMac port of C::B. They will look even worse than in w2k.
Very likely, plugins will also be classified in some manner.Plugins categories. :)
Moving all non-core plugins to a separate dialog is possible, and likely to be done. At the present time, this is still work in progress.I like the centralized way as it's now (everything in one dialog), and certainly having settings categories will help to not requiere to make separate dialogs.
The smaller the target size, the harder it is to get everything right, as you have to make more and more abstractions to reduce the level of detail.
Heh, you wanted it to be that easy, but that requieres a full recompile: :)Au contraire, mon capitaine.
It is in fact a lot more complicated. If you want to use 48x48 icons (or 64x64), then you will have to design them for that size. You cannot just scale the existing ones down, it does not work like this.
The reason why the icons have the size they have is that you are unable to see certain details below a certain size (as it happens, this is not visible in your screenshot, but it will be quite visible in some of the others). The smaller the target size, the harder it is to get everything right, as you have to make more and more abstractions to reduce the level of detail.
for FF in `ls`; do sudo convert $FF -resize 35% $FF; done
Any way to have lateral icons?Not without modifying the sources.