Re: [evolution-patches] Re: Improve folder treeview order

[Not Zed <notzed ximian com>]

On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 12:11 +0200, Christian Neumair wrote:
> Am Mi, den 02.06.2004, 11:22 Uhr +0800 schrieb Not Zed:
> > On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 21:18 +0200, Christian Neumair wrote: 
> > > Christian Neumair schrieb: 
> > > 
> > > > The attached patch improves the sort order of folders inside the folder 
> > > > treeview. See patch for order details. 
> > > 
> > > Sorry, the patch was not only lacking the most important part, it didn't 
> > > work properly as well. Here comes the fixed patch. 
> > Some comments below.  Like Jeff, i'm not that sure we want to do this;
> > although I don't feel particularly strongly either way.
>
> The reason I want to do this is that in locales != C, all the folders
> are shuffled randomly, because they can be partly untranslated. If you
> change the locale, you'll get a new shuffe. This looks heavily
> inconsistent and causes confusion, because people remember "it was on
> top", "it was the nth item", "it was the first item with a folder icon".
> Ultimately, it looks ways more nice, see "[evolution-patches] Make
> folder treeview internationalization work" [1].

How many people really change their LC_MESSAGES all the time?  If the answer isn't "bugger all" then it makes sense.  Anna?  I guess it makes sense if you change it, for spatial memory.

> > > Plain text document attachment (evo-treeview-order.diff)
> > > Index: mail/em-folder-tree-model.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > RCS file: /cvs/gnome/evolution/mail/em-folder-tree-model.c,v
> > > retrieving revision 1.53
> > > diff -u -r1.53 em-folder-tree-model.c
> > > --- mail/em-folder-tree-model.c	28 May 2004 17:04:18 -0000	1.53
> > > +++ mail/em-folder-tree-model.c	1 Jun 2004 19:17:12 -0000
> > > @@ -177,6 +177,40 @@
> > >  			      G_TYPE_STRING);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +/* This makes folders show up in the following order: Inbox, Outbox, Drafts, Sent, Junk, Trash, Others */
> > Not quite what it does, it puts Trash before Junk :)
> > 
> > Personally i'd put junk and trash last of all, but maybe thats just
> > me.
>
> I wasn't sure on the last two.
I guess its all kinda arbitrary.
> > > +static guint
> > > +name_to_position (gchar *name)
> > > +{
> > > +	g_assert (name);
> > Why add an assert?  The old code checked for name NULL, it shouldn't
> > change behaviour.
>
> why does one add treeview rows that have no label. That doesn't make
> sense and in my opinion hints at broken code.
I don't know, and yes you may be right, but since the code did that before, its just better not to change the behaviour.
> > > +	if ((!strcmp (name, "INBOX") ||
> > > [...20 lines of junk...]
> > > +		return 6;
> > I will say one word, well two.  Tables.  Loops. :)  There's no reason
> > at all for a nested if block here.
>
> Ok, ok. I suck. I don't know why I used these stupid semantics :).
Well, as a first cut/test, it worked anyway :)

--

Michael Zucchi <notzed ximian com> Ximian Evolution and Free Software Developer