[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 138380] Basic-IDE - Missing feature to export COLORIZED basic code in a WRITER document + Workaround

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138380

Heiko Tietze <heiko.tietze at documentfoundation.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|needsUXEval                 |
           Priority|medium                      |low
                 CC|libreoffice-ux-advise at lists |andrew at pitonyak.org,
                   |.freedesktop.org            |heiko.tietze at documentfounda
                   |                            |tion.org
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #34 from Heiko Tietze <heiko.tietze at documentfoundation.org> ---
(In reply to Hans-Werner from comment #15)
> [3] Code Colorizer Formatter (Pitonyak)
> https://extensions.libreoffice.org/en/extensions/show/71 
> Very good colorizing, but not exactly like "LO Basic IDE" colorizing:
Code highlighting is a can of worms and better suited for a macro. If this one
isn't working it might be good to fix the issues there. Andrew Pitonyak (CC) is
an experienced and active macro developer.

> C o r e   f e a t u r e   ?
> [1] The Basic IDE is part of the core and therefore the Basic IDE printing
> feature [File]>[Print] is part of the core too. Isn't it ?
It's a module and likely using different code.

> [2] The Basic IDE printing feature seems to be a little bit old-fashioned,
> only black-and-white printing is possible contrary to the colorized basic
> macro code displayed by the Basic IDE. There's no "What You See Is What You
> Get" ... 
Agreed on the need to improve, if true (haven't tested myself). And if you can
print/export it would be possible to insert the PDF. I suggest to check if we
have a ticket about this aspect and file one otherwise.

> [4] The language of the descriptions of the (most) extensions is English.
> What's about LO users, that don't speak English ? If [3] could be realized,
> the language would be automatically the language of the LO version the user
> is using.
Valid argument for a core feature but not a strong one. So in a nutshell no
objection for a core implementation - if someone volunteers. Guess it's quite
some effort for a limited benefit resp. some benefit for only a few users.

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