On 5 August 2013 10:32, Guillermo Polito <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, I commited a slice with a different selector name we discussed with Ben > a while ago. #bindKeyCombination:toAction: > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 4 August 2013 15:50, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I would use #onKeyCombination:do: to keep coherency with the framework. >> > >> >> why not naming it >> onKeyCombinationInKeyBindingsFramework:do: >> :) > > > Really? > >> >> >> >> >> OnKey: is good because it short. > > > Short is not always better, come on igor! > >> >> And not ambiguous (you can use single >> key(s) > > > yes but also... > >> as well as key combinations, > > > And then why Key is ok? The role the object is playing there is the one of a > key combination. If a key can be used as a key combination it is only > circumstantial. > >> >> but that details). > > > You know better than a lot of people that details matter :). And now you can > solve the detail instantaneously by just making the selector more intention > revealing. I do not see the problem. >
Well, it is always a tradeoff between being explicit and too elaborate. Now, of course, you, as designer of key bindings know better, so i won't argue about that. Just thought that onKey:do: is explicit enough to indicate the intent (and in any case, much better than on:do: ). -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
