[Lazarus] New menu designer. which style do you prefer?

[Ondrej Pokorny]

On 17.01.2016 0:11, Howard wrote:
> In this particular instance of deleting a submenu (not just a single 
> item) my motivation was not to make it overly complicated (though I 
> appreciate it may seem so).
> It is quite possible a user may have spent 10 minutes designing a 
> submenu with half a dozen items, and then hits the delete key 
> accidentally. With a simple Yes/No dialog (especially if the the 
> default button is Yes) it is all to easy to hit the wrong button and 
> lose the last few minutes' work; and there is no undo facility 
> implemented.
> I may have written that dialog clumsily, but I wanted to avoid the 
> possibility of an 'automatic' response which was disastrous. I quite 
> agree a straightforward Yes/No dialog is simpler and more elegant, but 
> it may not give a hurried user sufficient 'pause' to avoid 
> accidentally losing valuable work.

IMO we shouldn't think people don't know what they are doing. If I hit 
DELETE on a menu item, I usually want to delete it :)


> You'll realise I'm on a learning curve. This is my first significant 
> code contribution to an open source project. I actually never thought 
> I had the skill to offer a new menueditor. It was a forum comment by 
> the late BigChimp some years ago about the previous menueditor which 
> first got me thinking about its shortcomings, why it was so difficult 
> to improve/maintain, and how a replacement might be designed to be 
> better in that respect; and several developers said a complete rewrite 
> was the only way forward. Months became years and no one as far as I 
> could see was working on a replacement. So I decided to bite the 
> bullet, and started to look at relevant bits of the IDE code (much of 
> which I still don't understand). I've been learning on the job, as you 
> plainly see...

I agree! +1.

Ondrej
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20160117/4e629f3c/attachment-0003.html>