Exactly. There is no need anymore to have an "in-text" printed error. A non-modal popup (similar to a menu) would be a better solution. We should treat the result of print-it in the same way and offer it non-invasively. I put together a visual description of how such a widget would look like here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18323746/Tmp/coder/coder-pop-print.pdf Would anyone be interested to work on this widget? Doru On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Benjamin < benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo@gmail.com> wrote:
Why not a small popup placed correctly ?
Then it doesn't even corrupt your source code
Ben
On Oct 18, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
That is the first step :), if you have a decent text editor,
you could add a real print-it or do-it token, which is not regarged as source code, but just as meta information. I think we could quite easily do this in Amber right now ;).
But yes, why not, sounds like a reasonable idea to put print-its and compilation errors in double quotes.
On 2013-10-18, at 14:59, btc@openinworld.com wrote:
Just a random idea flitting thought my mind... When trying to <Accept> some code with an error in it, the error message gets inserted into the code such that it screws up syntax highlighting and also you need to use <Undo> to remove it. I wonder if the error might be inserted between double-quotes making it a comment. The same could be said for if you <PrintIt> from a debugger. It seems such a simple and obvious idea that I presume its been considered before and there are good reasons not to do it. I am curious what others think might be the pros/cons of it. In the case of <PrintIt> one benefit might be that the code could still be saved, with the result left as a kind-of example. This might be good for temporary code development in a Workspace.
cheers -ben
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"