Ok, I have been carrying around a fix to that for what? More than a year, in my code. It's a very simple fix. It does require agreement on the fact this is a problem and that a solution is needed, that's all :)
(i.e. I see two problems: 1) collision between exactly same shortcuts at global and local level, and 2) collision between single key shortcut and start of multikey shortcut. 1), I have, it's two lines in KMDispatcher. 2) is a bit more complex). Thierry ________________________________ De : Pharo-dev [[email protected]] de la part de Tudor Girba [[email protected]] Envoyé : lundi 14 avril 2014 15:31 À : Pharo Development List Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] 13102 Hi, I agree that the behavior is not ideal, but it only occurs when you have collisions. And of course it would be great to have everything working perfectly, but at this point it is more important to release. That is why, in my book, it is more important to reduce the impact (fast) than it is to solve it properly (slow). The problem was noticed in few cases. I for one only noticed it after the global shortcuts were introduced in the image. Hence, it is very likely to achieve a good enough state with little effort by removing the shortcuts. Of course, if someone else does have a better solution, he can propose it, but it has to be concrete and doubled by the effort that comes with developing and testing it :) Doru On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 3:22 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Tudor, an implementation which randomly determines which shortcut will match is a bug to me, and one worthy of being solved before release. Why wouldn't Moose alone desactivate the global shortcuts if that seems the solution? Thierry ________________________________ De : Pharo-dev [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] de la part de Tudor Girba [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Envoyé : lundi 14 avril 2014 15:15 À : Pharo Development List Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] 13102 Hi, Sorry for not replying before but I was offline. This issue is not to fix Keymapping at this point. The current solution was designed with intent to work in the current way. We can certainly discuss about fixing it, but the solution is not for Pharo 3. The current discussion is about disabling the global shortcuts for opening the Workspace and other tools. In the Moose image, we disable those shortcuts because with the current implementation of Keymapping having complicated global keybindings simply leads to problems (for example, we cannot use Cmd+o for anything). Do not get me wrong: Keymapping is an excellent contribution that simplified a lot an important area. My suggestion is to remove the global mappings for Pharo 3.0, and then continue to work on getting Keymappings to an even better state. Doru On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:49 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Esteban, Marcus, in that particular case, I would propose the following simple fix which could solve the first impression. - Document global shortcuts, ensure that they are single key. - Document an overload (or not) effect when your app redefines a global shortcut. - Change a bit Keymapping so that single key shortcuts match first. This would solve the immediate problem and let us time to consider a more complex solution for Pharo 4. Thierry ________________________________________ De : Pharo-dev [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] de la part de Esteban Lorenzano [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Envoyé : lundi 14 avril 2014 14:39 À : Pharo Development List Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] 13102 On 14 Apr 2014, at 14:28, Marcus Denker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 13 Apr 2014, at 11:26, Stephan Eggermont > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> Hi Marcus, >> >> I think 13102 is a showstopper. Can’t explain this to new users. >> sorry, but I have to disagree… this is an important problem, I agree. But fix that will need (AFAIK) a lot of work and probably a revamp of the keybindings in system. Also… this problem was (again, AFAIK) present since pharo2 and we have been able to continue working even with that annoyance. We will always have problems to fix. And we still have many *really important* problem to fix. But if we do not release even with some bugs, we will never release. "Show stopper” IMO, is a bug that prevents the system to continue working. Explain to students an annoyance in the system is bad, but not show stopper. so… I’m with Marcus. We can delay this fix. But I also believe this kind of problems are a “shoot in the foot”, not good for attract newcomers. That’s why we are suggesting that Pharo4 should centred on the tooling: we have the feeling that out tools are one (or several) step(s) behind the power that pharo has. Esteban > > The question is do we hold up the release for it? > That is: is not releasing better than releasing with this? > > How long do we stop releasing, considering that we will not find > anyone to fix it? > > Marcus > > -- www.tudorgirba.com<http://www.tudorgirba.com> "Every thing has its own flow" -- www.tudorgirba.com<http://www.tudorgirba.com> "Every thing has its own flow"
