2016-01-11 10:22 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > > > > On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:02 AM, Paul DeBruicker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Doru, > > > > The lack of this functionality has been my main complaint against > spotter. > > So thanks for adding it. > > Please voice these concerns as early as possible. We need this feedback to > be able to react and adapt to people’s needs. It is not always possible to > make it happen, but we need this information to think about future > solutions. > > > > Is the #s <myMethodName> functionality backported to/loadable in Pharo 4? > > Ahh, please do not call it like this :). > > It is not a special functionality. The mechanism exists since the > beginning of Spotter. What I described is an instantiation of it for > handling the direct senders use case. > > Spotter is meant to be extensible including for your objects. Which means > that you should be able to adapt it to your needs as well. Please try and > let us know if you have questions :) > > > > is there an equivalent search for implementors? > > A solution for this exists already since the beginning of Spotter :). You > will see an #Implementors category. Could you check to see if this is good > enough for you? > > > > Will you also please please please fix it such that the entire list of > > search results is shown as its only one category rather than having to > 'dive > > in' on anything? > > This was a feature that we never got around to do. Right now the logic > depends on a hardcoded limit for each search processor, and for the use > case you describe we would need to make it more dynamic. This would require > a bit of work, but it is certainly an interesting thing. If anyone would > like to look at it, it would be great :). > > > > E.g. In the example you've given you cut the list of > > class/method name pairs shown to the first 5 alphabetically where > certainly > > the entire list of 11 would fit in the drawn window without scrolling. > And > > really since there aren't any sections you should be able to run a > massive > > list of 500++ that could be scrolled with the page up/page down keys or > > scroll wheel on a mouse. > > The size is not the issue. If you dive in a category (Cmd+Shift+Right), > you will see that it can handle lists of 100k elements without problems > (and in a streaming like fashion). >
? 100k ? where. It is bound to 100 elements (and always was as far as I know (I reported this from the very beginning). how can you show more than 100 elements? > Cheers, > Doru > > > > > Thanks > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > Tudor Girba-2 wrote > >> Hi Stef, > >> > >> Thanks for taking the time. I think I did not express myself properly in > >> the previous mail because we are not really in disagreement :). > >> > >> The basic mechanism you talk about exists already in Spotter. Let me > >> explain. When you type: "#e graphs", you will get two examples (and only > >> the example search is being performed). > >> > >> > >> > >> This works because the name of the “Examples” category starts with “E”. > >> > >> Until now we did not have a top level processor that would search for > >> Senders (only inside a method). So, because of this you could not search > >> for them at the top level. In the meantime Stefan just finished > >> implementing it, the name of the category is Senders. So, you will type > >> “#s something”. > >> > >> > >> > >> I now made the category name start with # so that it is closer to the > way > >> to query for it. So, when you do not know how, you will just search for > >> “something”. Then you will discover the #Senders category, and then you > >> can learn that you can search for it. > >> > >> Now, you seem to be saying that instead of “#s something” you want to > type > >> “#n something”. For this we would need to find a solution to reconcile > the > >> two. My proposal was to maybe introduce something like “&n something” to > >> distinguish between the string match of a category name and a “shortcut” > >> (I do not know how to call it). I can see how to do this technically, > but > >> I still think this is less discoverable then the filtering by the name > >> like described above, and it would be an extra mechanism. We could add > >> this shortcut next to the category name to address this issue. The > >> interesting thing about the shortcut is that we could possibly make it > >> less ambiguous. For example, if you have two categories starting with > #S, > >> you will get both when you type “#S something”, which is less ideal for > a > >> common case. So, there are pros and cons. > >> > >> Now, what is missing is a top level category for References, and I > really > >> think we would have what you wanted (and it is a good goal). The cool > >> thing is that we would be solving this problem with a generic mechanism. > >> > >> So, what I am suggesting is to invest a bit in categories (#Senders can > be > >> integrated now) and then we play with it. > >> > >> Is this explanation clearer? Did I misunderstand something? What do you > >> think? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Doru > >> > >> > >>> On Jan 10, 2016, at 10:23 PM, stepharo < > > > >> stepharo@ > > > >> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Ok my last attempt :( > >>> > >>> When I look for something there are two cases > >>> > >>> - most of the time I > >>> ********************KKKKNNNOOOOOOOWWWWWWW********* > >>> is it clear? I know I know I know what I look for and I WANT THE > >>> FASTER WAY TO GET IT > >>> => no three clicks and strange navigation. > >>> > >>> I want the sender of this message (not the implementors the sender) > >>> I want that package > >>> I want the references to this class (not the class and the refs that > >>> class) > >>> and I'm ready to learn > >>> #N for reference > >>> #n for senders > >>> #m for implementors > >>> Because they are the same. > >>> #e for example like in the finder > >>> > >>> - looking around and the system can propose me something > >>> and I can navigate and think. > >>> > >>> But this is ok I just use Spotter to open the class browser and all the > >>> rest I do it with shortcuts. > >>> I tried to help but I failed. > >>> > >>> I will present Spotter as the great tool to open browser because I > cannot > >>> use it otherwise and > >>> nobody around me can show me on the spot something more efficient than > a > >>> shortcut in a workspace. > >>> Or may be I will simply not spend energy doing a videos on Spotter > >>> because to me this is not ready > >>> and far less usable than it is supposed to be. > >>> > >>> Now to me Spotter is taking a lot of classes for the gain I get. What > >>> esteban did or what is in Squeak > >>> is working perfectly for me because Spotter does not let me express my > >>> needs. > >>> So may be you have other needs but I would like to know how people > really > >>> works and not > >>> how Spotter should be usefull. > >>> > >>> The video of dimitry shows that well: Just browse a class and sometimes > >>> you get an implementor > >>> May be you do not like my mail because they look aggressive but when is > >>> the last time > >>> you did a real study with users that were not already convinced. Or may > >>> be with users > >>> that loves just one tiny feature and not the one you think that they > use? > >>> > >>> And BTW it hangs my images two times with 4.0 when I was in africa and > >>> this was annoying. > >>> Stef > >>> > >>> > >>>>> I do not get why you cannot > >>>>> - have a set of fixed most used queries and this will create a > small > >>>>> vocabulary that can be extensible > >>>>> and it can be mapped to what we do with shortcuts = reduce > cognitive > >>>>> load > >>>>> and then a full search when you do not know what you are searching. > >>>>> This is not exclusive and it works for the two scenario. > >>>> > >>>> I understand the intention, but I do not understand how these fixed > >>>> queries are any different than we have now. When you are on the top of > >>>> Spotter, when you query, you get always the same processors being > >>>> executed. At first you will not know their names, and you will scroll. > >>>> And if you see them, you might remember them and reproduce afterwards. > >>>> It’s a discoverable learning process that you do not have to remember. > >>> > >>> Because with these wonderfull queries I do not get what I'm looking > for. > >>> Because the system is trying to guess what I have in my mind and this > >>> system is not good for that because I'm thinking about > >>> the metallica song I'm listening. > >>> > >>> > >>>> The only part that is not discoverable is that # introduces a category > >>>> search. Thinking loud, I just thought that we can make the label start > >>>> with # like this (I committed this change): > >>> > >>> Sorry but I do not get it. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> <Mail Attachment.png> > >>>> > >>>> We also thought of having completion as soon as someone type #. So, > you > >>>> have a kind of a dropdown for the available categories, but we did not > >>>> get to implement that one. This should solve the discoverability > problem > >>>> even more. What do you think about that? > >>> Why not > >>> but just a ghost with > >>> #n printOn: #m #N .... > >>> would be a huge improvement > >>> > >>> Each time I used Spotter to look for something more than a class I > could > >>> not find it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Regarding the shortcuts, we could associated such shortcuts with a > >>>> processor, but I would first want to see if we cannot manage to > produce > >>>> a solution with the current set of options. > >>> > >>> I was not saying shortcuts and I was thinking the same vocabulary > >>> > >>> Cmd+N > >>> #N > >>> Cmd+m > >>> #m > >>> Cmd+n > >>> #n > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I was discussing with Luc and he made a fun but sad remark > >>>>> "Since people do not understand well spotter they most of the time > >>>>> only use it to open a class. > >>>>> And this is something that he already had before." > >>>>> I briefly looked at the Youtube video of Chloupis and > >>>>> So you can have a generic super cool tool, if people do not use it it > >>>>> defeats its purpose. > >>>> > >>>> Certainly. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> You can be really happy because you go fast with it but you only. > >>>> > >>>> That is not really true :). > >>> > >>> See my remark above. > >>>> > >>>>> So making sure that the most used actions are really supported is > >>>>> important. > >>>> > >>>> Of course it is. For Senders we did not find a good solution yet that > is > >>>> reasonably fast and useful. Stefan and I are still literally working > on > >>>> this. I think we should be able to have a solution, but we have to see > >>>> if it is reasonable enough. We will announce it once we have it > working. > >>> > >>> the problem is that you want to solve everything at once. While the > >>> divide and conquer is the solution for the first > >>> scenario I mention. I do not need something that crawls the entire > system > >>> when I have one precise query. > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> But, really, this tool more than anything allows one to play with > >>>> possibilities in a couple of lines of code. We want people to play > (some > >>>> did) and to get concrete feedback and possible solutions. I think we > >>>> should not just say that we need something else before we actually > play > >>>> with it a bit more. > >>> I do not get it. > >>> I never worked with me. And so far I did not see anybody succeeding to > >>> show me how to find something that I cannot > >>> find faster with a shortcut. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> But more important the discoverability is important because there is > >>>>> not even a help. > >>>>> Right now as a user I can only guess and often I close spotter and > use > >>>>> my shortcuts. > >>>>> As a user I see something that ask me about network (and I do not > care) > >>>>> but nothing > >>>>> that brings me to the next level. > >>>> > >>>> This is something we need to work on, but you know, time is limited > for > >>>> us, too. > >>> > >>> Add a button and an help text copied from your blog! > >>> And you will have made a 100% documentation jump. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Most of the time the user forgets the key combination (may be this > will > >>>>> be solved with > >>>>> the cool shortcut reminder we developed and is under review) > >>>> > >>>> All actions in spotter have a visible icon. All. And if you hover over > >>>> it you get the command. And there are literally 5 such actions. What > is > >>>> missing in this regard from your point of view? > >>> > >>> I do not know > >>> They do not cover what I want to do. > >>> I do not care of setting > >>> Most of the time I do not care about seeing all. I saw now that you > >>> have an arrow to show more than the top 5 > >>> good but again Cmd-shift > is not easy to type and give pain. > >>> I do not understand why I should dive in most of the time. > >>> > >>> I realised that I could use Spotter when I saw that I can press shift > >>> under the return because > >>> before I got immediate pain when trying with the left shift. > >>> To me left shift is a NO WAY. > >>> esc (top left) would work but I did not have the time to hack Spotter. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Doru > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Stef > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> www.tudorgirba.com > >>>> www.feenk.com > >>>> > >>>> "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with." > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> www.tudorgirba.com > >> www.feenk.com > >> > >> "The coherence of a trip is given by the clearness of the goal." > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> a GTSpotterMorph(858507264)2016-01-10T23-06-19-10433+02-00.png (108K) > >> < > http://forum.world.st/attachment/4870487/0/a%20GTSpotterMorph%28858507264%292016-01-10T23-06-19-10433%2B02-00.png> > ; > >> a GTSpotterMorph(10402452482016-01-10T23-11-35-849359+02-00.png (130K) > >> < > http://forum.world.st/attachment/4870487/1/a%20GTSpotterMorph%2810402452482016-01-10T23-11-35-849359%2B02-00.png> > ; > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Understanding-Spotter-tp4870311p4870547.html > > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Things happen when they happen, > not when you talk about them happening." > > >
