On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 4:09:34 AM UTC-5, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas < > [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > As far as Leo's code goes, > > w > e are going to have to disagree about this one. Leo's one-letter > abbreviations work for me, and longer names simply wouldn't. > Longer names for truly important items like c, g, p, c.p, p.v, etc would > be unbearable. Ditto for d, w, etc. >
I agree with you on the code base Edward. In my mind it is the onus of the developer to learn the truly justifiable time saving one-letter abbreviations. There is only a couple handfuls of the and they are generally phonetically linked to their intended full meaning. I do not believe that anyone interested in developing for Leo will find them a barrier to development. Their usage's are well documented in the appropriate section. In the end the effort of memorizing 10 OLAs helps the developer as it reduces code clutter significantly in Leo's case. In contrast, the argument against one/two/three letter abbreviations for commands is much higher when you start getting into having hundreds or thousands of commands. Even sprinkling in abbreviations in the vanilla distribution is a slippery slope. Intentional abbreviations created by the user is a much safer policy. Leo already has all of this. Short names avoid the need for code completion > or tab completion. This seems like a small thing but definitely is *not.* > I think I am reliable judge of what is and isn't convenient when dealing > with Leo's code base. > Edward, you are a reliable judge! I will reiterate what Edward said, code completion and tab completion is anything but trivial and certainly has no chance of making it into 5.2, nor should it as that has not been on the radar. I would love to see full code/tab completion implemented into Leo as I'm sure everyone else would. But this is a huge wishlist item, months worth of work and eventual bugs. As I use Leo more I find myself coming around more and more to Edwards points of view on Leo related issues. If anyone wants code/tab completion that programmer can use many other editors. It's prevalence elsewhere makes it feel like a "standard feature" and that without it something feels off. But that kind of thinking misses the point of Leo and Edwards life work completely. There are bigger and more important problems/barriers in programming that still need to be investigated and solved. These are the barriers that Edward has chosen to focus on and I'm behind his decision one-hundred percent. Anyone with Qt/Python/Jedi/Rope knowledge could come in and get code/tab completion working. Few others in the world of programming and editors have the vision for turning code into something other than a wall of text. That said, one day tab/code completion would be great to have and would as OVLC said help create a good first impression because it removes one more of those "but that editor has this" thoughts. One day we will get there but I feel it is safe to say that it is not a high priority. > Edward > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
