Version: v0.5.1 (using KDE 3.1.4) Compiler: gcc version 3.2.3 OS: Linux (i686) release 2.4.22 In the program several terms are used for the same thing. Macro, object and type refer to the same thing. This is confusing for the user, one term (object would be best I think) is enough.
Sorry for the so-long reply to this bug. IMHO, the three terms can't be "merged" in only one, because they have three different meanings: Macro is a construction created by the user, and made with some steps. Object and type are quite similar, but object is every thing placed on the screen, while type defines the kind of object. For example, if on the screen there is a line constructed by two points, then there are three objects (two points and a line) and two types of objects (point and line). I don't think they are so confusing...
I can agree that macro is something independent. But you have to be more clear with type and object. What you are trying to say is that each object has a type. And also an object can be a construct of several objects. Still the sub objects are still objects and not types. Your example about the line: The object would be "line". This object consists of two sub objects - the two points. The line itself can not be a sub object, because than you would have an unfinite loop: Line consists of 2 points and a line. And what is this line? Well, a line consists of 2 points and a line. And what is this line? ... I think you get the point. So for me it seems that you are mixing different terms. If you can not find a clear definition for object and type, this means there is something wrong with those terms. Sebastian
> Your example about the line: > > The object would be "line". This object consists of two sub objects - the > two points. The line itself can not be a sub object, because than you would > have an unfinite loop: > > Line consists of 2 points and a line. And what is this line? Well, a line > consists of 2 points and a line. And what is this line? ... I think you get > the point. I think I expressed myself a bit bad. There are no "sub ojects", just simple objects. In that case, we have: - two free points, whose type is "point" - a line by two points, whose type is "line" Every thing you place on the screen is an object, and every object has a specific type. Imagine you place 10 points on the screen: you have 10 objects, and only one type, "point". An object could be a vertical parabola by three points, or an ellipse by focuses and points, or a conic by five points, but the type of all these objects is the same, "conic". Imagine a costruction wants you to select three objects (let's say two lines and a conic): then you have to click on three things on the screen (==three objects), and specifically on two "lines" (line by two points, perpendicular, doesn't matter, as their type is "line") and on a "conic" (vertical parabola, conic by five points, etc - any "conic"). I think the two terms are not so confusing nor improperly mixed.
Yes, I understand your definition. But if you now take a look at your GUI, you have a main menu entry called "types". There we have "Create Makro" and "Organise Types". (it might be a little bit different in English, but it is basically this) I can create a new makro. Based on your description before, I guess this should not be named makro, but type instead. Because than it also makes sense to put it in the "types" menu. Sebastian
Damn, sorry for the spam of comments, but bugzilla seemed stucked... :-( > Yes, I understand your definition. But if you now take a look at your GUI, > you have a main menu entry called "types". There we have "Create Makro" and > "Organise Types". (it might be a little bit different in English, but it is > basically this) > > I can create a new makro. Based on your description before, I guess this > should not be named makro, but type instead. Because than it also makes > sense to put it in the "types" menu. For definition, a macro creates one (or more) object(s), so it fits more the "object" definition. In fact, every macro you create or import will appear in the right submenus of the Objects menu, depending on the type of its final object (in case of more than one object, it will go in the Other submenu). That's why new macros appear in the Objects menu. About macros and Types: the handling of the macros is in the Types menu because, concettually, a macro represents an "own type". This could seem a bit weird, because you could say: well, the "type" of a macro is the type of the returned object! You could think about a macro that construct eg 3 objects, it would be a "multitype" (just to say a dirty word). Or in case of a macro that uses a Python script that return a different object depending on a particulat calculation: what would be the type of a such macro? That's why every macro is considered an own type.
Basically I was thinking that you can take an existing object and define a makro for it. Next time you want to have this object, you can use the makro. In this case your makro is a type. Objects are only those things you have added to your drawing. It is like in object oriented programming, you have a class and objects. You call the classes in Kig types and the instantiations of it objects. So I suggest to throw away the term makro and say that you can define new types. Or if you think the term makro is easier to understand than rename all types to makros. But there is no use to have 3 different terms. Sebastian
By the way, if you still think there is no problem with the 3 different terms, you can also just close this report... Sebastian
> Basically I was thinking that you can take an existing object and define a > makro for it. Next time you want to have this object, you can use the > makro. In this case your makro is a type. Objects are only those things you > have added to your drawing. It is like in object oriented programming, you > have a class and objects. You call the classes in Kig types and the > instantiations of it objects. Unfortunately, the "macro == existing type" is valid only in the case that your macro creates only one object. In the case of a macro that creates eg 4 objects which have 4 different types, how should I call the macro? It's not an existing type, but a custom type, and that's why we have the macro creation and managment menu items in a Types menu.
As you said before, a line is a complex type consisting of 2 points. If I add a line to my drawing, I get a line object. So if I define a new type, it will of course be the combination of several types. So need to add the makro term. Sebastian
Thank you for the bug report. As this report hasn't seen any changes in 5 years or more, we ask if you can please confirm that the issue still persists. If this bug is no longer persisting or relevant please change the status to resolved.