Default Icon; more or less according to decision. #3624
Conversation
Introducing a name for it to make it easier to refer to, and to break up the long sentence. Closes modelica#3613
HansOlsson
changed the title
Took me a while to find this rationale, but as explained above I'm not sure we should introduce a concept for this situation, and what I suggested is another way to break up the long sentence. |
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
chapters/annotations.tex
Outdated
|
|
||
| \begin{nonnormative} | ||
| The reason for making the tool-dependent outline rudimentary is to encourage the model developer to provide a proper icon. | ||
| Regardless of \lstinline!visible!-attributes imply that if the primitives have a parameter-dependent value for \lstinline!visible! or even \lstinline!visible = false! it will not switch to the default icon regardless of the parameter setting. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's weird to include the constant false case in this sentence (also fix grammar):
| Regardless of \lstinline!visible!-attributes imply that if the primitives have a parameter-dependent value for \lstinline!visible! or even \lstinline!visible = false! it will not switch to the default icon regardless of the parameter setting. | |
| That \lstinline!visible!-attributes are not regaded implies that if the primitives have a parameter-dependent value for \lstinline!visible!, the display will not switch to the default icon regardless of the parameter setting. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On top of that formulation, it would be easy to also mention the case of simply not wanting any graphics at all, which was a concern of a colleague of mine:
| Regardless of \lstinline!visible!-attributes imply that if the primitives have a parameter-dependent value for \lstinline!visible! or even \lstinline!visible = false! it will not switch to the default icon regardless of the parameter setting. | |
| That \lstinline!visible!-attributes are not regaded implies that if the primitives have a parameter-dependent value for \lstinline!visible!, the display will not switch to the default icon regardless of the parameter setting, and it is possible obtain an icon which only shows connectors by adding a dummy primitive with \lstinline!visible = false!. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't want to explicitly add that work-around in the specification, and could just change "parameter-dependent" to "possibly parameter-dependent", and then remove "visible=false" as it is clearly covered by "possibly parameter-dependent".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that possibly parameter-dependent makes it hard to finish the sentence; regardless of the possibly parameter-dependent setting doesn't read very nice.
To me, the part about an icon only showing connectors doesn't have to be seen as a workaround for a problem with the specification; I prefer to see it as a useful application of the rule about non-visible primitives. It's not a big deal what we say here, but with my concerned colleague in mind I would prefer to at least have a poll to refer to if we end up not explaining this use case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have now shortened it as much as possible; I realized that since we don't care for the value of the attribute we don't have to consider whether it is parameter-dependent or not.
|
|
||
| \begin{nonnormative} | ||
| The reason for making the tool-dependent outline rudimentary is to encourage the model developer to provide a proper icon. | ||
| Regardless of \lstinline!visible!-attributes imply that all primitives are considered regardless of the value of their \lstinline!visible!-attribute. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Now that the normative rule is formulated in terms of the visible-attribute, I find this explanation redundant:
| Regardless of \lstinline!visible!-attributes imply that all primitives are considered regardless of the value of their \lstinline!visible!-attribute. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Before approving without a non-normative sentence like this,
That \lstinline!visible!-attributes are not regarded makes it possible to obtain an icon which only shows connectors by adding a dummy primitive with \lstinline!visible = false!.
I'd like to see a language group poll against adding it. Otherwise, I'll have a hard time explaining to my colleague why such a simple clarification could not be added.
Reviewing with Request changes while waiting for the outcome of the poll.
Introducing a name for it to make it easier to refer to, and to break up the long sentence.
Closes #3613