Re: [cdt-dev] Preferences

[Chris Moller <cmoller@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Either (a) or (b) would work fine.  (b) seems a bit more flexible, but 
since I can't imagine there'd be any need for that flexibility (how 
often are you going to have to morph one project into another?) I'd vote 
for (a).

With respect to x86/MIPS/whatever, part of the plan is to have code in 
the in the Preferences dialog that scans the libhover docs path looking 
for XML files and presenting the user with a button list to pick from.  
It takes noticeable time to parse the doc files so if a user is, e.g., 
using only straight C (i.e., no GTK, etc.) or whatever he can just 
deselect unnecessary stuff and save time.  Is the Target stuff going 
into that level of detail?  If not, I expect a manual libdocs selection 
mechanism will still be necessary, so it shouldn't add any complexity.

cm

Alain Magloire wrote:

> This is all good, except that this contribution should not be necessary
>
> bind to the editors, i.e. I may want to extract some info to do some
> code analysis for say.. building dependencies.
>
> Maybe the simplest way is to change the interface:
> (a)
> ICCompletionContributor.iniatialize(IProject prj);
>
> or add
> (b)
> ICCompletionContriubutor.setProject(IProject prj);
>
> (c)
> ? Any others ?
>
> Now this can get even more complex when we will add the notion of Targets, for
> example a project compiling for MIPS, you do not want to show X86 information.
> But .. let's not worry about it.
>
> So chris what will work for you (a), (b) or do you have a (c) in mind ?
>
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature