On 03 Aug 2016, at 10:52, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
2016-08-03 10:36 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>>: I will just re-post my first answer:
if reintroduce them means reintroduce them hardcoded as before, then Iâm complete against it and I WILL NOT integrate such solution. Iâm 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:)
we already have PharoShortcuts>>#displayIfFalseShortcut ^ $f alt
this is defined and therefore in the same kind "hardcoded" as any other shortcut doItShortcut ^ $d meta inspectItShortcut ^ $i meta In PharoShortcuts
the action (RubSmalltalkEditor>>displayIfFalse: aKeyboardEvent) is just not (yet) bound to this shortcut. I don't see how this is an argument against this shortcut definition. All other shortcuts are defined like that.
And this is not really for adding a new feature. This shortcut already (always :) ) existed in the old PluggableTextMorph based editor, it was just lost (and not on purpose I think) like other things when we moved to rubric (as you can see, the code for this action is already there in rubric).
yes, it existed⦠and it was bad, as are bad all hardcoded shortcuts that yes, still exists a lot in the system. but we want to clean the system, not perpetuate it. for me, this is not a shortcut problem but a completion one⦠what we need to do is to enhance it. But even not doing it, I would not introduce new hardcoded shortcuts. Esteban
Esteban
On 03 Aug 2016, at 10:30, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com <mailto:dionisiydk@gmail.com>> wrote:
2016-08-03 10:27 GMT+02:00 Guille Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com <mailto: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