Jump to content
PeterPanettone

New feature suggestion for MMX: implementation marking in Find Identifier window

Recommended Posts

I have filed a new feature suggestion for MMX:

 

The "Find Identifier" popup window should have an "implementation" marking:

image.png.dadedcb016bb2e11dbdc6d8ed6425be3.png


This would be very useful as it would allow seeing at a glance which identifiers are above or inside the implementation section!

Edited by PeterPanettone

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, PeterPanettone said:

inside the implementation

 

Well, or we could just continue to use the preceding class name as the indicator...

procedure DoStuff; // interface

procedure TMyStuff.DoStuff; // implementation

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, FredS said:

 

Well, or we could just continue to use the preceding class name as the indicator...


procedure DoStuff; // interface

procedure TMyStuff.DoStuff; // implementation

 

The "implementation" marking is much better visible and therefore more INTUITIVE.

Edited by PeterPanettone

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Dinar said:

I think Parnassus Bookmarks editor window like would be more nice implementation. Just instead of bookmarks, there will be displayed the founded identifier

1

 

Writing "implementation section" in each and every found item is useless and takes too much space on the list.

One single implementation marking like in my example is enough to clearly see which found items are above the implementation keyword and which ones are below the implementation keyword, as there is maximally only ONE implementation keyword in a unit.

Edited by PeterPanettone

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, PeterPanettone said:

The "Find Identifier" popup window should have an "implementation" marking:

How is this supposed to work when the number of visible lines is less than the number of lines in the interface/implementation section? A simple marker line (I would suggest something like a plain horizontal line to avoid wasting a full text line) will scroll out of view.

 

I was thinking of different text and/or background colors for interface and implementation, but the styling system doesn't really like custom coloring. It often looks pretty poor in at least one of the standard themes. Perhaps we can adopt some of the syntax highlighter settings? This would honor the fact that the editor can have a different color scheme than the IDE itself.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Uwe Raabe said:

How is this supposed to work when the number of visible lines is less than the number of lines in the interface/implementation section? A simple marker line (I would suggest something like a plain horizontal line to avoid wasting a full text line) will scroll out of view.

I was thinking of different text and/or background colors for interface and implementation, but the styling system doesn't really like custom coloring. It often looks pretty poor in at least one of the standard themes. Perhaps we can adopt some of the syntax highlighter settings? This would honor the fact that the editor can have a different color scheme than the IDE itself.

1

Good point. Yes, different text and/or background colors for interface and implementation would be nice. The aim is to somehow indicate the scope of each found identifier. But then it would be logical to differentiate also between other scopes? What do you think?

Edited by PeterPanettone

Share this post


Link to post

What about showing symbols as used in the contents tree? They can be placed somewhere between the Match, Line or Source column.

 

image.png.5093c2cc0afe4be009a5632d009d69ba.png

 

The Yellow Plus symbol signals interface while the Blue Minus stands for implementation. That would waste only a little bit of real estate.

 

image.png.352023b4a310d3781b9a1ceda84a0265.png

 

Not sure what you refer to with "other scopes". Can you name some?

Share this post


Link to post

I think the symbols are a good idea. But why the plus an minus? In the contents tree they signal that you can expand the node (I guess, I haven't installed you tool on this computer). Since the colours are quite easy to distinguish, use the circles without the plus / minus characters.

Edited by dummzeuch

Share this post


Link to post

The Plus and Minus signs are taken from the UML specification for public and private. The colors are just a visual enhancement. These icons are used all over the place, especially for the Delphi class visibility:  

 

image.png.a5564dc6a69e6a8bd83612f823f6818b.png

 

They are not related to expanding or collapsing the tree structure (spot the down arrow in front of the Module node in the content tree screenshot above).

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Jacek Laskowski said:

Maybe green and gray circle would be enough? Without plus or minus sign?

As I said: those two icons are already used elsewhere to mark the interface and implementation section and should thus be immediately recognized. Why should I introduce alternative icons here?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Uwe Raabe said:

As I said: those two icons are already used elsewhere to mark the interface and implementation section and should thus be immediately recognized. Why should I introduce alternative icons here?

I like this idea.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×