Uses Clause Manager improved: Filtering Identifiers with multiple words!

[PeterPanettone 167]

Now it is possible to filter Identifiers with multiple words (separated by spaces):

 

 

Added hourglass cursor during the filtering of Identifiers to give better user feedback.

 

Here are the sources (based on release r2907) :

 

UsesClauseManager1206.zip

[dummzeuch 1671]

Again, nice idea but the implementation is - remember, I'm trying to be polite (*1) - suboptimal. You introduced yet another global variable and even a not intended side effect: What if the user has entered a multi word unit filter and then switches to the identifier tab? Oh, you added a workaround for this design flaw in the form itself?

 

I'm going to reimplement this differently because I like the idea.

 

(*1: Me being polite? There are people who think that impossible. I have to agree, I'm not good at that.)

[dummzeuch 1671]

Implemented in revision #2910

[PeterPanettone 167]

5 hours ago, dummzeuch said:

suboptimal

It worked PERFECTLY. No side-effects. Everything has been tested extensively, also the case you mention. No design flaws. No memory leaks.

 

Everybody has another method to implement things. Nobody hinders you to change my code according to your own rules. But please don't publicly despise my work only because you do things differently. Thank you.

Edited December 8, 2019 by PeterPanettone

[dummzeuch 1671]

13 minutes ago, PeterPanettone said:

It worked PERFECTLY. No side-effects. Everything has been tested extensively, also the case you mention.

I'm not saying it didn't work. I actually have no idea whether it worked because I never tried it. If you say, it did, I believe you.

16 minutes ago, PeterPanettone said:

No design flaws.

 

17 minutes ago, PeterPanettone said:

Everybody has another method to implement things.

It's simply bad coding practice to use global variables in general and in particular for creating side effects (look it up, it means something different than you think) like you did. If a procedure needs additional parameters, why not simply pass them?

 

Remember when I said that your latest change (the one that added the web search context menu entry) didn't compile because two variables were not declared? If you had changed the procedure FilterStringList so it required an additional parameter it wouldn't have compiled either but I would have gotten a strong hint that there was another change in another unit and would have looked for it. But as it was, those missing variable declarations could have been:

• local variables
• unit global variables
• fields of the class
• global variables from any unit that is used by this unit

How could I have known? So I inspected the code and saw that they were used in several methods. That usually means that they are declared as fields of the class. I added that declaration and everything compiled fine. But since I was missing important changes from a different unit the code for multi word filtering didn't work.

 

I'm sorry if I have offended you. As I said: Politeness is not one of my strengths.

[PeterPanettone 167]

6 minutes ago, dummzeuch said:

If you had changed the procedure FilterStringList

When adding code to a well organized existing codebase it is COMMON PRACTICE to change that code base only to an amount that is necessary to make the added code work. That is also my policy because nobody wants to see his well-organized codebase changed in the case he doesn't agree with the code addition. If the administrator of that codebase then thinks there are better ways to INTEGRATE that added code into his codebase then he is free to do so. I have enough confidence in your coding experience to trust you in doing so with great professionality. But please also respect my professional policy to respect your existing codebase.

[PeterPanettone 167]

17 hours ago, dummzeuch said:

I'm sorry if I have offended you.

It is not easy to offend me because I always try to understand the motivation of the offender; this motivation often is an EMOTIONAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL HANDICAP. However, there are more or less EFFICIENT ways to communicate.

Edited December 9, 2019 by PeterPanettone

[dummzeuch 1671]

32 minutes ago, PeterPanettone said:

When adding code to a well organized existing codebase it is COMMON PRACTICE to change that code base only to an amount that is necessary to make the added code work. That is also my policy because nobody wants to see his well-organized codebase changed in the case he doesn't agree with the code addition. If the administrator of that codebase then thinks there are better ways to INTEGRATE that added code into his codebase then he is free to do so. I have enough confidence in your coding experience to trust you in doing so with great professionality. But please also respect my professional policy to respect your existing codebase.

We definitely have different views on what common practice (or rather: good practice) means.

We also have different views on effiicent communication.

 

Let's end the discussion now. It leads nowhere.

[PeterPanettone 167]

1 minute ago, dummzeuch said:

Let's end the discussion now. It leads nowhere.

OK.