2013/6/19 Benjamin <benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo@gmail.com>

Why not something like

bindKeyCombination:toAction:

?

Ben

On Jun 19, 2013, at 9:28 AM, St�phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:

excellent�
so how do we integrate this change?

I will chnage the chapter on keymapping :)

On Jun 18, 2013, at 9:57 PM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com> wrote:

I prefer the onKeyCombination* because of the following rationale:

- to me a shortcut is the association between a key combination and an action
- a key combination is a combination of keys :), which is associated with an action

Stef, so far I changed the asShortcut => asKeyCombination, following the same idea :).

Guille

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:25 PM, St�phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:

On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:21 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier@cea.fr> wrote:

> The problem with onkeypress, onkeydown, onkeyup is that they are low-level events compared to the shortcuts we are talking about.
>
> A shortcut is at least one key, but is usually a key + a modifier or a sequence of key + modifiers (such as the emacs ^X ^C ($x ctrl, $c ctrl). The Keymapping stuff sits a lot higher than the basic keypress events (which do exist as well) and can recognize multi-keys combinations. If you call that onKeyPress:do:, then you loose in the name part of the power of it.
>
> Hence the onKeyCombination:do: (but I prefer onShortcut:do:)

onShortcut:do: looks good to me.

Stef

>
> Thierry
> ________________________________________
> De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] de la part de Esteban A. Maringolo [emaringolo@gmail.com]
> Date d'envoi : mardi 18 juin 2013 18:14
> � : Pharo Development List
> Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] on:do: for shortcuts?
>
> 2013/6/18 Cl�ment Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com>
>
>> On Javascript, there are :
>>
>> onkeypress
>> onkeydown
>> onkeyup
>>
>>
>> I think we should have same API than other languages, especially popular ones. So 1 of these 3 would be the best for me.
>>
>> Why not onKeyPress:do: ?
>
> +1 to each of the last two statements.
>
>