[Lazarus] "Figures" in code explorer

[Duncan Parsons]

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?
Figures
Statistics
Style
Hints
Analytics
Metrics
Formatting
..

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?

DSP