On 04 Apr 2014, at 19:26, J.F. Rick <s...@je77.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: > For assignment, I would say bold both := and the variable being assigned to. > > I like that a lot, especially since it draws the two critical elements of > variable and assignment together. On a minor note, both := and = are > currently the same color: black. That only furthers the ":= is a message" > misconception. It might be worthwhile also giving := its own color, given its > uniqueness.
yes this would be nice. And a fix for that. Did you also see that what I like is to make a distinction between a possible selector and a wrong one? because this is nice. > > Underlining sounds interesting, but there are a few choices: > a. nested underlining - self someMessage: (self otherMessage: arg 1 and: > arg2) and: arg3 > b. non-nested underlining - only underline #otherMessage:and: and not > #someMessage:and: > c. dynamically underline only message where cursor is located. > > I think you could do nested underlining in the same way that nested blocks > and parentheses work. someMessage: and the second and: are underlined in > black. otherMessage: and the first and: are underlined in green. That way > nesting is clear. This would also be useful for code with nested > conditionals, probably the most common occurrence of nested multi-part > messages. I also like (c) as a minimally intrusive change that could help > novices when they write code. It has the disadvantage that novices couldn't > look at a piece of foreign code and get where the multi-part messages were. > > Cheers, > > Jeff > > -- > Jochen "Jeff" Rick, Ph.D. > http://www.je77.com/ > Skype ID: jochenrick
