On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will just re-post my first answer:
>
> if reintroduce them means reintroduce them hardcoded as before, then I���m
> complete against it and I WILL NOT integrate such solution.
> I���m sorry for being so strong here, but previous implementation was lame and
> we need to get rid of them.
>
> Now, I understand people are used to use those bindings and also some others
> (no idea which ones because I never used them��� for me ocompletion is good
> enough��� but those are tastes). So I would be very happy to integrate a
> generic way to define keybindings and outputs (which is already there, with
> keymapping, but I mean an editor or something), and I would be very happy to
> integrate a default configuration (which of course, will include
> #ifTrue:/##ifFalse:)

I would guess code expansions could be many and varied between
different individuals, and quickly consume available keyboard
shortcuts.�� Perhaps a generic mechanism would be single shortcut for
"code expansion" which processes the letters preceding the cursor.
For example, using shortcut <ctrl-e> for code expansion and typing...

itf<ctrl-e>

==>�� ��ifTrue: [ ] ifFalse: [ ]

The could be an interface to define these code expansions - initially
at least on a purely personal basis.

> And this is not really for adding a new feature. This shortcut already (always :) ) existed

With a single shortcut for code expansion, perhaps a few other
existing combinations could be freed up.

cheers -ben

>
> Esteban
>
> On 03 Aug 2016, at 10:30, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2016-08-03 10:27 GMT+02:00 Guille Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com>:
>>
>> I'm also against.
>>
>> - They take a place in the shortcuts that prevents others to use it
>> - If lazy people really needs this, the code completion should be
>> enhanced. This is a code completion concern...
>
>
> +1
>
>