[Lazarus] Merge setup dialog and options dialog?

[Martin]

On 19/08/2012 16:17, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
> On 19-8-2012 16:53, Martin wrote:
>> On 19/08/2012 15:30, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
>>> On 19-8-2012 16:17, Martin wrote:
>> The proposed merge (picture) added a 2nd set of categories (copied from
>> the setup) to the option.
>> That means, that in the option, one and the same setting will then be
>> accessible via 2 different ways. That is the most confusing concept of
>> them all.
> NO. That was a quick MOCKUP, an IDEA of how things COULD look like, not
> my idea of how they MUST look like. Please read my initial post again,
> and especially my response to Juha.
Well I do not see, how you want or can solve it?

the option dialog (even in a none advanced mode) will always have more 
options than the setup. So it needs different grouping.

- The setup is easiest to understand, with the one page per setting.
- The Option just can not do one page per setting.

How to solve that?

> After that, we got Ludo & your idea of a basic versus advanced options
> dialog, which would fit in very well as well.
>
>> Since the change can not be applied to the options, I see 3 ways only:
>> - current / difference
> You mean leave things a is?
Yes, in the context of GUI design setup vs option

This does not block normal, advanced or other improvements

>> - setup will be putting more on each page, become harder to use, but
>> looks more like options
> This is the way things seem to be going...
Not following.

I always advertised the "one page per setting" in the setup, as the best 
way.

But I also said, it is only good in the setup, where there are only very 
few settings. In the options, there must be multiple settings per page.

BTW, independent of this discussion: Some option pages are overloaded, 
and should be splitted. But the splitted pages still have several 
settings per page.

>> - we try to change the option to be like the setup, less settings per
>> page (1 or 2 maximum) . This will mean to have 10 or more times as many
>> pages/entries in the tree.
> I'd agree that wouldn't help.
>
Good. One more point on the agreed list.