Yes I agree very good idea for a GSoc, please send us a proposal. Regards Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 28 mars 2013 à 00:03, Benjamin <benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo@gmail.com> a écrit :
Exactly what I was about to propose :) Write a GSoC proposal ^^
Ben
On Mar 27, 2013, at 9:29 PM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:
When working with Seaside (or other frameworks) one often works with non-Smalltalk resources stored within the image (CSS styles, images, ...) often stored as strings within methods:
myCss ^'body { background-color: #ffffce; }'
or
script ^'alert("hello from Javascript");'
I also often see Base64 encoded images, or when working with XML a method might return XML content.
With things like Helvetia [1], the reworked autocompletion/syntax highlighting and new browsers like Nautilus in mind I wonder if (may be in the not so far future) I can:
- click on a Smalltalk method to get ST styling and edit functionality - click on a CSS content method to do CSS styling and completion - click on a method with a form content to display the picture (and not the Base64 encoded string) - click on an XML content to browse the XML tree - click on an HTML providing method to edit HTML and maybe preview - click on a method with CSV to edit the tabular data within a grid - click on a primitive method to see Slang or C/C++ code - ...
Internally the content can be distinguished using pragmas:
myCss <mime-type: text/css> ^'body { background-color: #ffffce; }'
Are there any plans to move Pharo into this "not only Smalltalk" in methods direction?
Is it already possible to easily extend Nautilus with "pluggable" custom panes depending on the method content.
I see that there are buttons on the Nautilus side. Wouldnt it be better to have "Tabs" with "Source" as default and where I can add my own custom tabs?
Would be a lot of work to provide editors and stylers for all the mime-types or autocompletion for JavaScript, SQL, ... whatever. But the question is more "do we have the groundwork so people can built up on it."
Any comments?
I'd like to see something like that... a GSOC?
Thx T.