[Lazarus] "Figures" in code explorer

Duncan Parsons lazarus at dsparsons.co.uk
Mon Apr 20 11:08:33 CEST 2009

Alexander Klenin wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 09:29, Mattias Gaertner
> <nc-gaertnma at netcologne.de> wrote:
> > Theoretically you can define 'hint' very generic: some
> > message about a pascal source. But then the term 'hint' becomes
> > almost meaningless
> But you propose to define 'figure' as an even more generic thing:
> "number, place, line, structure or fact", so it will have even less
> meaning.
> > every time a user user reads about 'hint' he doesn't
> > know whether it means fpc hint or lazarus hint.
> And this is not a bad thing IMO -- these hints could just as well be
> in FPC, since their usefulness has nothing to do with Lazarus itself.
> FPC just moves too slowly.
> Conversely, it would be useful to display FPC hints in the same list
> and with the same grouping.
> > Another argument for 'figures' is this:
> > At the moment the items are listed in the tree.
> > Eventually the lists should be moved to a second tree below, where
> > some context buttons are shown. Additionally this would waste less
> > space and update time.
> > Then the current tree will only list the available categories and
> > the total numbers, which is afaik often called in English 'figures'.
> We need a native English speaker to resolve this ;-)
> Yes, 'figures' may mean 'totals', but this word does not convey
> anything at all to the user who does not already know they are
> actually hints.  You can call them 'things', 'items' or 'jabberwacks'
> -- it will not make any difference.

Maybe it should be 'Go figure(s)'...

So what have we got so far?

Well, it's kinda all of them.. Whilst it isn't a very 'hip and
happening' term, it strikes me that they are Observations about the
code structure, formatting, etc. Maybe 'Code Observer' would suit?


More information about the Lazarus mailing list