Code::Blocks Forums
Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) => Development => Topic started by: MortenMacFly on June 27, 2006, 10:09:17 pm
-
Dear devs,
as it happens on 21st of June wxScintilla 1.69.2 has been released. Since that time I'm running C::B with this version of wxScintilla without any problems. I'd like to point out a few things from the changelog that may lead to switch C::B in SVN to that version (unless there are serious objections):
- support for Inno Setup scripts (C::B uses Inno Setup)
- translucent drawing implemented for caret line and box indicators
...and several bugfixes.
With regards, Morten.
-
what's the website to download this --> I only found 1.68.2 ...
-
what's the website to download this --> I only found 1.68.2 ...
wxScintilla is merged into the wxCode repository meanwhile. Try http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=51305 (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=51305), just the first link of the "Latest File Releases".
With regards, Morten.
-
what's the website to download this --> I only found 1.68.2 ...
wxScintilla is merged into the wxCode repository meanwhile. Try http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=51305 (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=51305), just the first link of the "Latest File Releases".
With regards, Morten.
just stumbled on that myself, but can't download from it ... :-( ; will try again tomorrow ....
-
It should be noted that Scintilla 1.70 is out. :)
http://www.scintilla.org/
Maybe a wxScintilla 1.70 release is coming. ;)
-
Maybe a wxScintilla 1.70 release is coming. ;)
...then we could play this game forever, right? ;-)
But honestly: 1.69.2 is quite stable, I'd say the most stable 1.6x branch and it seems to work, though...
-
I have the download ;-) , now Morton could you point me to the changelog ??
-
I have the download ;-) , now Morton could you point me to the changelog ??
Well, first of all you can read the usual scintilla changlog (http://www.scintilla.org (http://www.scintilla.org)). The ne for 1.69 applies for wxScintilla, too. The wxScintilla specific stuff I got directly from CVS (sourceforge) by issuing a cvs log command in the components/wxscintilla folder. Of course this may require that you checkut the souce code of the wxCode components before... ;-)
With regards, Morten.
-
Actually, according to that changelog, IMO we could as well screw that version. A translucent caret is not really the most important feature in the world, and TCL is not our main target language either, so that will not get us much of a benefit.
However, 1.70 looks very interesting, it improves internationalisation (at least for GTK).
-
and TCL is not our main target language either
I wasn't talking about TCL, but Inno Setup (iss) files...?! In addition: Did you read the changes for wxScintilla, too?
However, 1.70 looks very interesting, it improves internationalisation (at least for GTK).
Agreed on that.
In the end it was just a suggestions, I'm not pushing anything here. So let's agree to wait for 1.70 or later (which has been suggested by sethjackson and thomas) and I'll continue using 1.69.2 for testing...
With regards, Morten.
-
Maybe a wxScintilla 1.70 release is coming. ;)
...then we could play this game forever, right? ;-)
But honestly: 1.69.2 is quite stable, I'd say the most stable 1.6x branch and it seems to work, though...
Yes we could. :)
Actually, according to that changelog, IMO we could as well screw that version. A translucent caret is not really the most important feature in the world, and TCL is not our main target language either, so that will not get us much of a benefit.
However, 1.70 looks very interesting, it improves internationalisation (at least for GTK).
Scintilla 1.69 supports the Spice language too. How dare you forget. :lol:
Anyways if wxScintills 1.70 comes out before RC3 then I would say go for it. Otherwise scince Morton has already tested 1.69.2 then C::B could use that version. :)
EDIT:
Morton where is the wxScintilla changelog? I have never been able to find it (I just look at the CVS logs lol)......
-
Morton where is the wxScintilla changelog? I have never been able to find it (I just look at the CVS logs lol)......
You are doing it well - that's how I obtain the changes, too. As I said ain another post:
The wxScintilla specific stuff I got directly from CVS (sourceforge) by issuing a cvs log command in the components/wxscintilla folder. Of course this may require that you checkut the souce code of the wxCode components before... ;-)
I only create the changelog using WinCVS to get it in a more structured way.
With regards, Morten.
-
Morton where is the wxScintilla changelog? I have never been able to find it (I just look at the CVS logs lol)......
You are doing it well - that's how I obtain the changes, too. As I said ain another post:
The wxScintilla specific stuff I got directly from CVS (sourceforge) by issuing a cvs log command in the components/wxscintilla folder. Of course this may require that you checkut the souce code of the wxCode components before... ;-)
I only create the changelog using WinCVS to get it in a more structured way.
With regards, Morten.
Ok thanks. :)
-
Scintilla 1.69 supports the Spice language too. How dare you forget.
How dare I forget! Must admit I never heard of it before... :)
In addition: Did you read the changes for wxScintilla, too?
Nope. They don't really make it easy for you to read them, too.
But hey, no problem with upgrading to 1.69.2 :)
I just wondered if it really bears a significant advantage for us. But if you feel like it, go ahead, there sure is no harm. :)
-
I just wondered if it really bears a significant advantage for us.
There were quite several unicode changes during the time of our last wxScintilla update. Meanwhile wxScintilla is released as "unicode stable"... for whatever that means...?! Which reminds me: I should try the unicode issue killerbot reported in another thread with this version of C::B of mine... I'll do so - if that works this would definetely be a reason to commit.
With regards, Morten.
-
I just wondered if it really bears a significant advantage for us.
There were quite several unicode changes during the time of our last wxScintilla update. Meanwhile wxScintilla is released as "unicode stable"... for whatever that means...?! Which reminds me: I should try the unicode issue killerbot reported in another thread with this version of C::B of mine... I'll do so - if that works this would definetely be a reason to commit.
With regards, Morten.
To mention a caution here:
There is a serious bug with scintilla and gtk. Remember the double-click on marked-area hangs?
I can't determine if they fixed this. I submitted the patch that we use in CodeBlocks, but could never determine if they used it.
So I opine that some serious testing needs to be done before using new scintilla code.
-
I can't determine if they fixed this.
Good point! Where can I find the patch? Is it in the S::F bugtracker somewhere?
Edit: And by the way: I'm not in a hurry submitting this - it is completely untested (so far) under linux because I hadn't have time to compile. Before this I won't do anything anyway... I'm aware that this is a core component. Again: This is an informal message in the first place.
-
I just wondered if it really bears a significant advantage for us.
There were quite several unicode changes during the time of our last wxScintilla update. Meanwhile wxScintilla is released as "unicode stable"... for whatever that means...?! Which reminds me: I should try the unicode issue killerbot reported in another thread with this version of C::B of mine... I'll do so - if that works this would definetely be a reason to commit.
With regards, Morten.
I will try it to, for the uncomment issue
-
I can't determine if they fixed this.
Good point! Where can I find the patch? Is it in the S::F bugtracker somewhere?
Edit: And by the way: I'm not in a hurry submitting this - it is completely untested (so far) under linux because I hadn't have time to compile. Before this I won't do anything anyway... I'm aware that this is a core component. Again: This is an informal message in the first place.
I submitted the patch to wxScintilla group.
It's still sitting at:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=141621&atid=753190
(http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=141621&atid=753190)
This is the patch we use to semi-avoid the gtk/wxScintilla hang.
http://developer.berlios.de/patch/index.php?func=detailpatch&patch_id=1037&group_id=5358
(http://developer.berlios.de/patch/index.php?func=detailpatch&patch_id=1037&group_id=5358)
That berlios patch search mechanism is a pita. If you search for any/any/any patch, you can't find the accepted patches. Wierd.
-
I can't determine if they fixed this.
They did not. I've applied it within my local copy of 1.69.2... just to make sure. Thanks.