update virtual buffer code to remove outdated passthrough on and `off #243
Comment 2 by jteh on 2008-11-26 22:46
A few other comments on your patch:
Comment 3 by aleksey_s (in reply to comment 2) on 2008-11-27 07:49
i think this must be exactly defined at one day. isn't it?
do you sure we will not have another mode never?
what things for example? we can describe this property in source one time. personally i think my proposal is better readable that that one with passthrough.
then why did you changed it for users? :-)
i just noted, that it must be sorted out. well, lets call it "guess/change virtual buffer mode when focus changes/when caret moves"...
i think virtual buffer mode also cowers this.
accepted. sorry for this, my python knowledges are not quite.
i made constants and used they for this where possible.
sorry, my mistake. i thought i removed such entries.
Comment 4 by jteh (in reply to comment 3) on 2008-11-27 08:06
Yes. I should have clarified that this was a reason at the time. It is no longer a valid reason. :) Sorry for the confusion.
I don't believe we will, except perhaps not having a buffer at all, which means this concept doesn't exist.
I can't think of any other examples right now, but virtual buffer mode has no real meaning; it doesn't describe a concept. It infers "the mode of the virtual buffer", but mode could mean almost anything. For argument's sake, it might mean whether the buffer automatically updates or whether it will include the content of combo boxes. The term "mode" needs to be clarified by something.
I think pass-through is more specific. However, see below...
:) This is a very good point. I believe that pass-through makes sense as a term for developers, but not for users. However, you are right in saying that this is inconsistent.
Comment 5 by aleksey_s (in reply to comment 4) on 2008-11-27 08:39
may be by docstring in source? :-)
now i don't understand what do you want. you have said that passthrought is covering our behavior, but you also agree that it implements inconsistency.
Comment 6 by jteh (in reply to comment 5) on 2008-11-27 09:23
If this is the case, we may as well just stick with passThrough. This is my argument: passThrough is at least clear; it defines a concept for which there are two possible values or modes.
It is inconsistent with the user experience. However, I don't agree that your solution is any better: it might reduce some inconsistency, but it is also less clear what the mode actually does.