> On 17 Oct 2014, at 02:40, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
>> On 16 Oct 2014, at 22:34, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Nicolai Hess <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I too miss the old workspace sometimes. Mostly for "printIt". Playgrounds 
>>> printIt-popup is good, but sometimes I want exactly that: "print it".
>>> On "Esc", the popup closes , but the code is still selected. Most of the 
>>> time I
>>> want to go on typing, but first I have to unselect the code.
>>> 
>>> Suggestions:
>>> on "Esc" close the popup and unselect the current selection
>>> 
>>> Good point.
>> +1
>>> on "Enter" insert the printIt-result.
>>> 
>>> Indeed, this is something I thought of, too. However, I am not convinced 
>>> that the frequency of needing to insert the result of "print it" warrants a 
>>> shortcut 
> 
> I often have a few lines of snippets listed in a Workspace that I want to 
> compare the results, or copy/paste the lot to some documentation.
> I was thinking of asking for a <pin> icon/button, but inserting as text is a 
> better idea.
> 
>>> that can be so easily use (i.e., Enter can be used also for adding a line). 
>>> Right now, if you want to insert, you do Cmd+c, Esc, Cmd+v.
> 
> I would go for <space> rather than <enter>, since intuitively that keeps you 
> on the same line.

but also enter means “accept” in everybody’s brain (and other tools prefer that 
over space).
anyway, +1 to that… is something that I really miss. 

Esteban

> 
> 
>> I also don't think 'Print It' is not that common, and if you use it you want 
>> the output to be in a comment anyway so the syntax highlighting doesn't make 
>> everything red.
> 
> When the result is inserted, surrounding it by comment quotes is a good idea.
> 
> cheers -ben
> 
> 
>> I also wanted to add that the whole idea of GT-Tools is to do a lot and even 
>> more powerful things based on a few simple concepts.
>> We are currently making lots of small usability changes, which is all good, 
>> but we have to guard the simplicity.
> 
> 


Reply via email to