2015-11-09 9:47 GMT+01:00 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com>:

On 09 Nov 2015, at 06:50, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:

Le 09/11/2015 01:33, Yuriy Tymchuk a ��crit :

On 08 Nov 2015, at 20:14, Thierry Goubier
<thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:

Stef,

I don't understand. I have never set a category in a class creation
template for the last three years.

When I teach using Pharo, I allways tell students to create a
package, select the package in the browser and add a class there.

Changing #category: for #package: (which is what the fix will be, I
bet) is useless.

Because what written there is not a package, it���s a package + tag. So
it would make sense to have

��� package: ���PacakgeName��� tag: ���TagName���

Trying to make it simpler for new students, I see :(

Exactly, because you say: ���each class has in a package and can have a tag, and here you can define that���. Otherwise you have to explain that category is actually a magical thing that splits into a package and a tag by following some rules.

You'd better explain it that way given how it is implemented now.

I don't think the package + tags choice improved anything there compared to package + sets of packages, especially regarding categories (we could have a one to one relation between category and package, which would be way simpler to explain).

And now we need a higher abstraction than packages, the one represented for now by 'a group of packages loaded by a configuration or a baseline'.

I'd say 'missed opportunity'. Now, I'd say no to any RPackage redesign, so we'll have to live with it and repatch the rest of the system (and the documentation).

But what I���d really enjoy is to have a dedicated UI there. Because we
really use class templates as templates. 90% of a time I just change
the Superclass, Class and instance variables.

As I said.

And 9% more I also add
a tag to the package.

What? You don't do a 'add a tag to a package' operation? You create tags by side effect of a new class creation?

Of course.

Then, if you consider what you're asking for, I won't agree with it :) It clearly shows your IDE is defficient there.

��

(Your numbers don't add up to 100%. What is the one percent left for then? ;))

I guess Traits.

��

��:)

��

So why we cannot have a UI with text fields for
this values? Later it can be fancier e.g. classVariables are hidden
by default and can be expanded on demand or if the are defined (I
don���t like explaining class vars to people and I don���t like them from
design point of view). Then also superclass field can have
autocompletion only from the defined classes prioritizing the ones
from the same package. Instance variables can be converted to slots
really fast by lookup, etc���

Look, you're making even more complex everytime. But you're welcome to try; such a GUI can be added, yes, especially behind the add Class menu item instead of reusing the full template.

A wizard for class creation :)

Note that on current Nautilus, if you use add Class in the menu, opening the menu will auto-select what is behind the mouse click. And the template is prefilled, which makes it a bit more complex to create a new clas on Object.

It���s not about creation, it���s about working with classes. #compile:classified: is not present in the method template because no one will never change it. Similarly I���ve never ever changed the `subclass:` keyword, so why should it be editable? I���ve never changed `instanceVariableNames:` keyword. Probably the only thing I���ve changed was adding `uses:` when working with traits. But again, why do I have to recall whether it���s called `uses:` or `using:` and type it between `subclass:` and `instanceVariableNames:`? Wy I cannot just press a button ���use traits��� and a field will appear where I have to specify traits.

Now, why not? As I said, write a wizard behind the addClass.

Like that, it's out of the way if we don't want to use it :)

��

I mean, it���s nice that we can subclass by sending a message, but we
don���t develop methods in a template like:

compile: ���methodCode��� classified: ���protocolName���

I do. When the browser is broken, it's sometime the only way left :) Or editing Smalltalk code directly on github :)

Yes, but you are not doing that in Nautilus, and there is probably a reason for that. Otherwise we can do an experiment: add #compile:classified: to the method editor and see if people like it.

So maybe we make use of special UI for classes instead of plain
code.

Note that with smart suggestions, you can have both in the same apparently plain code.

I didn���t get that one :(

Well, take for example:

SmaCCCodeGenerator subclass: #SmaCCSmalltalkCodeGenerator

instanceVariableNames: 'isExpressions parseTreeCache category splitIndex'

classVariableNames: 'MaxJumpSize'

poolDictionaries: ''

category: 'SmaCC-Development'

If you right click on parseTreeCache, you can get as menu items:��

Look: intelligent GUI, text template ;)

But think of your usage, and also of the other usage: just beginner, new student.

I don���t know how the student thinks, but I���d prefer to have 4 input fields:

- superclass autocompleted with existing classes

- class name

- instance variables that will have visual separation for each var (eg: http://xoxco.com/projects/code/tagsinput/example.html)

- package that will be already entered as it is now (and maybe have some inactive style not to distract)

But you loose the message, as Peter pointed out.

Mind you, those ideas in a class creation dialog, fine.

Thierry

��

Uko

And the last one will show you that our toolset is geared towards the power user. And this is not going to change anytime soon, to the contrary.

Thierry