On 23 November 2011 21:11, Henrik Sperre Johansen <henrik.s.johansen@veloxit.no> wrote:
On 23.11.2011 21:08, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote:
On 23.11.2011 20:20, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
The Pharo Manifesto (http://code.google.com/p/pharo/) lists "Not backward compatible" as one of its 4 tenants. Yet, while working through the issue tracker, I've noticed some adding/keeping complexity to keep things backward compatible - most recently http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=5007.
I just wanted to start a discussion because obviously the more mature Pharo gets, the harder it will be to remove things...
Sean
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Backward-Compatibility-tp4101111p4101111.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I don't get it, I don't see how ctrl-s does anyhing in the original case... You click OK without accepting the contents first, and it still returns the modified text. Why not just remove the yellow "this editor has unaccepted contents" marker for this type of dialog?
Altering ctrl-s to do an accept of the input isn't really what I'd expect from an input dialog...
Cheers, Henry
And igor thinks it should, so I guess opinions differ :)
well, normally, there should be a simple keyboard shortbut to accept a dialog (not just text in it). so you don't need to touch mouse every time, everywhere to proceed. cmd-s/ctrl-s seems like a logical choice for dialogs with text entry in this case. for other cases - enter key would suffice. and esc for canceling it.
My point was I'd expect ok/cancel dialogs to act consistently, and afaik, the rest do not accept on a cmd-s, do they?
Either way, I don't think it's a big enough difference to bother with a setting.
right. i would live with or without this feature (and i hope others too), which means that it doesn't deserves any setting.
Then again, it's a bikeshed, so I'll shut up from now on.
Cheers, Henry
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.