[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 141975] The macro-UI is confusing and not intuitive to me

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141975

--- Comment #3 from Alain Romedenne <alain.romedenne at libreoffice.org> ---
Considering that LibreOfice Basic IDE and dialog editor layouts have remained
untouched for nearly 20 years, I tend to agree with Markus statements about
LibreOffice IDE aging user interface. However I fear that foreseeable
modifications go beyond choosing an IDE. My point is that macro edition, macro
management and macro execution are distincts aspects to leverage jointly. Rare
are IDEs that elegantly combine these aspects. I suspect that no IDE will ever
cover them all for the script languages that LibreOffice currently proposes.

When it comes to editing Basic, Beanshell, JavaScript or Python [*] scripts
LibreOffice may offer the possibility to select your editor of choice. I am
including libreOffice Basic as time of writing macros, one may appreciate to
benefit from extra features such as code folding, code completion, objects
catalogs, unit testing, … next to existing syntax highlighting, source explorer
and debugging.

While coders may elect their preferred IDE, eligible IDEs needs to support the
user, shared, document, extension libreOffice paradigm whereby explorable
libraries are either editable either available in read-only mode.

The ability to execute scripts requires to be proposed both from LibreOffice
client and from the IDEs if ever possible. LibreOffice current macro selector
dialog must provide means to execute predefined subsets of Basic methods.
g_exportedScripts global variable offers such for Python libraries/modules.
Compulsory descriptions for Basic, Beanshell, JavaScript or Python predefined
executable scripts would be a substantial plus.

As for johnks' comment about spreadsheet properties, I have the feeling that
UNO object inspector coming with 7.2 would cover the approach he's looking for.

[*] Java and C++ are intentionnaly omitted …

PS: The above are not definitive viewpoints, but preliminary observations
intended to initiate discussion.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.