theme and iconset are decoupled, so yes you can :) problem is that I still didn't added the preference for choosing iconsets (my bad, didn't have the time yet).
On Oct 15, 2013, at 8:19 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <[email protected]> wrote: > And can I have a setting with the > > - Pharo theme (not pharo3) > - and the eclipse icon set ? > > :) > > (Of course I should set an issue and write a Slice, otherwise Camillo will > get angry at me ;)) > > Thierry > De : Pharo-dev [[email protected]] de la part de Esteban > Lorenzano [[email protected]] > Date d'envoi : mardi 15 octobre 2013 20:07 > À : Pharo Development List > Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font > > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 6:53 PM, Gary Chambers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sorry, not been following the thread but is there really a problem? >> Code font is specifiable in settings. Guess we are all just arguing about >> what the default may be... > > exactly :) > >> >> Regards, Gary >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Nicolas Cellier >> To: Pharo Development List >> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 5:42 PM >> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font >> >> Pushing the newcomers argument: if newcomers are used to using if then else >> and switch case, why did you deprecate usage caseOf:? >> If newcomers argument counts, shouldn't we remove text editing, browser, >> etc..., go back to file based development and create an eclipse (or emacs) >> plugin? >> >> I saw very good arguments for proportional: more readable/natural/more text >> on the line... >> So I'm inlne with Pavel, >> >> Is there any argument for fixed space (but the hypothetical newcomer). >> There are some times when we must educate rather than imitate. >> >> >> 2013/10/15 Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> >> >> On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:29, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > I am in favor of using monospaced fonts for the code and sans serif fonts >> > for the rest of the things. I pushed the Source Sans + Source Code fonts >> > for the Moose image since half a year, and actually people like the look >> > of them. I am a bit surprised to see such virulent reactions :). >> > >> > @Sven: the mail discussions that led to the fonts choice had you in CC the >> > whole time :). >> >> OK, maybe a didn't pay enough attention: I knew it was about look and feel >> and (a) new font(s), I failed to register that it actually was about using a >> monospaced font. >> >> I can't belief that you are surprised about the reactions ;-) >> >> For what it is worth, I still haven't heard any solid argument for the >> change. Even if it is just aesthetics and it doesn't make a difference, >> there is still the question why we have to change. >> >> > Cheers, >> > Doru >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:05, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > >> >> > >> On 15 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> except that it is not accurate :) >> > >>> >> > >>> - with a monospace you can have bolds and italic without problems (it >> > >>> is a decent one)... and you also can play with sizes (for example, for >> > >>> comments) >> > >>> - when you copy&paste you will lose part of your formatting no matter >> > >>> if you have a fixed font or a proportional one (is not true that you >> > >>> lose all of them... in fact I usually do not lose any) >> > >> >> > >> Sorry, but there are no sensible arguments in favour of a monospaced >> > >> font. It is just not needed (in Smalltalk). Another way to look at it >> > >> is: 99.99 % of the world use proportional fonts. >> > >> >> > >> BTW, I think whoever made this 'decision' knew it would be _very_ hard >> > >> to get this passed ;-) >> > >> >> > >> Maybe we should switch to C/Java/Javascript syntax so that we do not >> > >> scare newcomers ? Sorry, I could not resist. >> > > not taken. >> > > and non sense. >> > > idea is to welcome newcomers, not to became another language. >> > > Now... if font is *part* of the language, we could be talking about the >> > > same. But since it is not, then we are comparing apples with tomatoes. >> > > >> > > I can say that no, 99% of the world do not use proportional fonts... >> > > every other programing environment uses monospaced fonts. >> > > yeah, I know "we are different"... but we still code. Ah, no, sorry... >> > > we "manipulate objects", but that looks really close to coding for me. >> > > >> > > and yes... I was expecting a lot of whining (even if it was not me >> > > *alone* who took the decision), but I was expecting from people at least >> > > wait to see the fonts before start the bashing ;) >> > >> > Well, it is not 'bashing', I just totally do not agree. >> > And I would like to know who else is in favour, how the decision was made. >> > But I'll wait a bit for other comments. >> > >> > >>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> >> > >>> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>>> Excellent arguments ! >> > >>>> I am with you 100% >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 15:21, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> Since the days when editors was able to allow me using any fonts, i >> > >>>>> was always switching to variable-spaced font >> > >>>>> for code pane. And i am not speaking about smalltalk or pharo here, >> > >>>>> it was C and Pascal those days :) >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> guess, what i would prefer in pharo? :) >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> The bad things about getting used to monospaced fonts is that you >> > >>>>> format code and it looks perfect, >> > >>>>> but then you print it or copy/paste it somewhere else where it uses >> > >>>>> other font, and all your beautiful formatting are gone. >> > >>>>> Needless to say, that printing press was invented way before first >> > >>>>> computer or digital printer, and all we know about fonts came >> > >>>>> to us from the printing world.. and i think i would be right saying >> > >>>>> that before first digital printers there was not such thing as >> > >>>>> monospaced >> > >>>>> fonts, because it is not economically efficient: you don't want to >> > >>>>> waste space on front page of your newspaper by aligning glyphs to >> > >>>>> some virtual grid. >> > >>>>> More than that, it works well only if you using same font size and >> > >>>>> no bold/underline variants whatever.. as soon as you use variants or >> > >>>>> different font size, >> > >>>>> all the benefits of 'formatting' using monospaced font is gone. >> > >>>>> That means, if we employ monospaced font for code, we will be forced >> > >>>>> to not use bold/italic variants, or different font size (for >> > >>>>> instance, >> > >>>>> i would be like to play with code highlight scheme, where comments >> > >>>>> using different font size, or where method name uses bigger font >> > >>>>> size etc). >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> -- >> > >>>>> Best regards, >> > >>>>> Igor Stasenko. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > www.tudorgirba.com >> > >> > "Every thing has its own flow"
