On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: > I will just re-post my first answer: > > if reintroduce them means reintroduce them hardcoded as before, then I’m > complete against it and I WILL NOT integrate such solution. > I’m sorry for being so strong here, but previous implementation was lame and > we need to get rid of them. > > Now, I understand people are used to use those bindings and also some others > (no idea which ones because I never used them… for me ocompletion is good > enough… but those are tastes). So I would be very happy to integrate a > generic way to define keybindings and outputs (which is already there, with > keymapping, but I mean an editor or something), and I would be very happy to > integrate a default configuration (which of course, will include > #ifTrue:/##ifFalse:)
I would guess code expansions could be many and varied between different individuals, and quickly consume available keyboard shortcuts. Perhaps a generic mechanism would be single shortcut for "code expansion" which processes the letters preceding the cursor. For example, using shortcut <ctrl-e> for code expansion and typing... itf<ctrl-e> ==> ifTrue: [ ] ifFalse: [ ] The could be an interface to define these code expansions - initially at least on a purely personal basis. > And this is not really for adding a new feature. This shortcut already > (always :) ) existed With a single shortcut for code expansion, perhaps a few other existing combinations could be freed up. cheers -ben > > Esteban > > On 03 Aug 2016, at 10:30, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2016-08-03 10:27 GMT+02:00 Guille Polito <[email protected]>: >> >> I'm also against. >> >> - They take a place in the shortcuts that prevents others to use it >> - If lazy people really needs this, the code completion should be >> enhanced. This is a code completion concern... > > > +1 > >
