[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: questions about conventions for GUI preferences

From: John W. Eaton
Subject: Re: questions about conventions for GUI preferences
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:55:18 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0

On 10/25/19 11:37 AM, Torsten Lilge wrote:

The reason why I started to exchange the literals by symbolic constants
for key names and default values was to prevent typos in the "hard
wired" strings which already led to one or two bug reports in the pasts.

I only added symbolic constants in cases where I was working on the
related preferences anyways. That's why we currently have this mixture.

I really vote for changing all still existing literals into symbolic
constants for the reasons that have already mention in your mail (in the
last paragraph, did you mean "With literal strings, ...")? If this is
the common opinion here, I would raise the priority of this issue and
work on this for the next time.

Thanks for the feedback and explanation about the reasons for the current situation.

Yes, I meant to say

With literal strings used for the keys, it's easier to know exactly what the key is without having to search but it's harder to ensure that there aren't any typos in the names and harder to change the name of a key. Not that it matters too much, because it is already hard to change the name if you want to preserve backward compatibility with preference files from previous versions.

Let's continue to move toward using symbolic names then. I don't think we need to make the change all at once. I can help with the changes.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]