issue-#168 improvements in DevLinkChk

User avatar
Josef Templ
Posts: 2047
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:50 am

Re: issue-#168 improvements in DevLinkChk

Post by Josef Templ »

Robert wrote: 2 - I think it is ok; when it is not set the Meta.Item is undefined.
Thanks, this explains that the implementation is correct.

- Josef
User avatar
Josef Templ
Posts: 2047
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:50 am

Re: issue-#168 improvements in DevLinkChk

Post by Josef Templ »

Robert wrote:It all seems a bit odd to me.

- Why is the simple format exported, but not the alternative format?

- The Controls Docu does not mention the alternative format.

- The Dialog Docu handles the alternative differently for Guards & Notifiers.
They two formats have unequal status for Notifiers, and even more so for Guards.

- The "Forms" tutorial Docu (chapter 4) initially says you must use the simple format, then, at the end of the section, describes the alternative format.

- The "Forms" tutorial Docu (chapter 4) says you must use the simple format; it does not mention the alternative format.

Edit:

Both formats (3, if we add a BOOLEAN option) should be given equal status everywhere.
>- Why is the simple format exported, but not the alternative format?

The export is redundant. It could be removed easily.
Probably, the simple form was first and documented and the extended form came later.
Alternatively, all versions could be exported. it doesn't make a difference.
The named type is more or less a comment.

> - The Controls Docu does not mention the alternative format.

Should be fixed.

> - The Dialog Docu handles the alternative differently for Guards & Notifiers.
> They two formats have unequal status for Notifiers, and even more so for Guards.

What do you mean by 'unequal'? Is this a matter of docu wording?
If so, should be fixed.

> - The "Forms" tutorial Docu (chapter 4) initially says you must use the simple format, then, at the end of the section, describes the alternative format.

should be fixed. Probably, the best way to fix it would be to insert a link to the full docu in Dialog.
Otherwise, whenever the param list is extended in some way there are multiple places where an update of the docu is needed.

> - The "Forms" tutorial Docu (chapter 4) says you must use the simple format; it does not mention the alternative format.

Isn't this a contradiction with the previous point?

- Josef
User avatar
Robert
Posts: 1024
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:04 am
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Re: issue-#168 improvements in DevLinkChk

Post by Robert »

I am in two minds here.
1 - This discussion should be paused:
- It is in the wrong place
- I will raise a formal issue for this new feature, but am deliberately delaying until 1.7.1 stable is out.

2 - I want to reply to the explicit points raised.
Josef Templ wrote:.. Should be fixed
...
Is this a matter of docu wording? If so, should be fixed.
Yes, yes, YES. I will propose wording in due course.
Isn't this a contradiction with the previous point?
Apparently! I meant to say the first point applies to the Guards section, and the second to the Notifiers section. That, I think, resolves the contradiction.

Anyway, I will look at all this more carefully when this issue is formally raised.
User avatar
Josef Templ
Posts: 2047
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:50 am

Re: issue-#168 improvements in DevLinkChk

Post by Josef Templ »

It is OK for me to postpone this issue until the next release.

In general, for me there is the question if this feature, I mean the additional parameter in guards and notifiers be it INTEGER or something else,
should be considered a high-level concept or rather a special coding trick for exceptional cases.
Inside BB I have seen it used in StdTables, StdLinks, and DevInspector. It seems that it has been invented
for simplifying property editors working on a group of selected controls. In such cases the notifiers are identical
except for a constant that identifies the affected property.

- Josef
Post Reply