Sign in Join

Live chat for Free Pascal, Lazarus, Delphi and every Pascal programmer.

Mailing lists / lazarus / 2011-06

TFindOption

11 messages · 3 people · –

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.

Bart

Hi,

TFindOtion defines frEntireScope, but we do not have a corresponding frDisableEntireScope and frHideEntireScope (like we have for frHideMatchCase and frHideWholeWord).

I use TFindDialog for an AddressBook application and I would very much like to hide the EntireScope checkbox, because it makes no sense in my app.

Does anybody object to implementing frHideEntireScope and frDisableEntireScope?

NB. AFAICS (http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/VCL/en/Dialogs.TFindOption) Delhi does not have all TFindOption enumerates that Lazarus has, so it should not be a compatibility item...

Bart

Reply by email

Mattias Gaertner
to Bart
Show quoted text 11 lines
Hi, TFindOtion defines frEntireScope, but we do not have a corresponding frDisableEntireScope and frHideEntireScope (like we have for frHideMatchCase and frHideWholeWord). I use TFindDialog for an AddressBook application and I would very much like to hide the EntireScope checkbox, because it makes no sense in my app. Does anybody object to implementing frHideEntireScope and frDisableEntireScope?

Can you give an example for what frDisableEntireScope is needed?

NB. AFAICS (http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/VCL/en/Dialogs.TFindOption) Delhi does not have all TFindOption enumerates that Lazarus has, so it should not be a compatibility item...

Mattias

Reply by email

Bart
to Mattias Gaertner

Hi Mattias,

I'm not sure about frDisableEntireScope in the real world, but I definitely see a place for frHideEntireScope.

Bart

Mattias Gaertner wrote 31 lines
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:56:41 +0200 Bart wrote: > Hi, > > TFindOtion defines frEntireScope, but we do not have a corresponding > frDisableEntireScope and frHideEntireScope (like we have for > frHideMatchCase and frHideWholeWord). > > I use TFindDialog for an AddressBook application and I would very much > like to hide the EntireScope checkbox, because it makes no sense in my > app. > > Does anybody object to implementing frHideEntireScope and > frDisableEntireScope? Can you give an example for what frDisableEntireScope is needed? > NB. AFAICS (http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/VCL/en/Dialogs.TFindOption) > Delhi does not have all TFindOption enumerates that Lazarus has, so it > should not be a compatibility item... Mattias -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Reply by email

Mattias Gaertner
to Bart
Hi Mattias, I'm not sure about frDisableEntireScope in the real world, but I definitely see a place for frHideEntireScope.

Me too.

I just wonder, if an option should be added, that no one needs.

Mattias

Reply by email

Bart
to Mattias Gaertner

OK.

Let's not do frDisableEntireScope then.
Shall I implement frHideEntireScope and post in in Mantis, or will you?

Bart

Mattias Gaertner wrote 21 lines
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:52:13 +0200 Bart wrote: > Hi Mattias, > > I'm not sure about frDisableEntireScope in the real world, but I > definitely see a place for frHideEntireScope. Me too. I just wonder, if an option should be added, that no one needs. Mattias -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Reply by email

Martin
to Bart: I'm not sure about frDisableEntireScope in the real world, but I definitely see a place…
Bart wrote
Hi Mattias, I'm not sure about frDisableEntireScope in the real world, but I definitely see a place for frHideEntireScope.

Probably not much sense:
frDisableEntireScope would be required if the EntireSciop is the same as the normal search.

E.g if no backward search is allowed, and your are at the start of the text. Then you are doing entire scope anyway.
If your scope is "the selected adres-list" versus "all address lists", but you only have one list, then it is always entirescope too.

Reply by email

Bart
to Martin
Martin wrote 11 lines
>, but I > definitely see a place for frHideEntireScope. Probably not much sense: frDisableEntireScope would be required if the EntireSciop is the same as the normal search. E.g if no backward search is allowed, and your are at the start of the text. Then you are doing entire scope anyway. If your scope is "the selected adres-list" versus "all address lists", but you only have one list, then it is always entirescope too.

But in my case the search always is the entire scope anyway (and I can think of more scenario's where "entire scope" has no meaning in the context of the search).
I just do not want to present the end-user with this checkbox, it is not usefull in this case and it may confuse the hell out of people.

Would it hurt anyone if the option to not display the checkbox would be implemented (and the default stays as is)?

Bart

Reply by email

Martin
to Bart
Bart wrote 9 lines
On 6/23/11, Martin wrote: > frDisableEntireScope would be required if the EntireSciop is the same as > the normal search. > > E.g if no backward search is allowed, and your are at the start of the > text. Then you are doing entire scope anyway. > If your scope is "the selected adres-list" versus "all address lists", > but you only have one list, then it is always entirescope too. But in my case the search always is the entire scope anyway

I understood your case.
The case of having to hide the checkbox was bever questioned. But a question was raised, if disabling of the checkbox could ever be required. So I came up with the best example I could find. (admittedly, not very good)

Would it hurt anyone if the option to not display the checkbox would be implemented (and the default stays as is)?

IMHO, Go ahead

Reply by email

Bart
to Martin

@Martin: Sorry I misunderstood you apparantly ...

@Mattias: I posted a patch in Mantis:
http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=19619
If you agree, can you apply it (I suppose you have the proper commit rights on svn)?

Bart

Martin wrote 27 lines
On 23/06/2011 23:00, Bart wrote: > On 6/23/11, Martin wrote: >> frDisableEntireScope would be required if the EntireSciop is the same as >> the normal search. >> >> E.g if no backward search is allowed, and your are at the start of the >> text. Then you are doing entire scope anyway. >> If your scope is "the selected adres-list" versus "all address lists", >> but you only have one list, then it is always entirescope too. > But in my case the search always is the entire scope anyway I understood your case. The case of having to hide the checkbox was bever questioned. But a question was raised, if disabling of the checkbox could ever be required. So I came up with the best example I could find. (admittedly, not very good) > Would it hurt anyone if the option to not display the checkbox would > be implemented (and the default stays as is)? IMHO, Go ahead -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Reply by email

Bart
to Bart

@Mattias: thansk for applying.

Bart

Bart wrote 39 lines
@Martin: Sorry I misunderstood you apparantly ... @Mattias: I posted a patch in Mantis: http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=19619 If you agree, can you apply it (I suppose you have the proper commit rights on svn)? Bart On 6/24/11, Martin wrote: > On 23/06/2011 23:00, Bart wrote: >> On 6/23/11, Martin wrote: >>> frDisableEntireScope would be required if the EntireSciop is the same >>> as >>> the normal search. >>> >>> E.g if no backward search is allowed, and your are at the start of the >>> text. Then you are doing entire scope anyway. >>> If your scope is "the selected adres-list" versus "all address lists", >>> but you only have one list, then it is always entirescope too. >> But in my case the search always is the entire scope anyway > I understood your case. > The case of having to hide the checkbox was bever questioned. > But a question was raised, if disabling of the checkbox could ever be > required. So I came up with the best example I could find. (admittedly, > not very good) > > >> Would it hurt anyone if the option to not display the checkbox would >> be implemented (and the default stays as is)? > IMHO, Go ahead > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Lazarus mailing list > > http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus >

Reply by email