tx Bernhard.
Indeed this is a nice suggestion.
Le 10/8/16 à 20:41, Bernhard Pieber a écrit :
And this is how it works in VA Smalltalk. The default shortcut to expand the
abbreviations used there is Shift-Space. See this excellent video by the late
James Robertson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY_rJ3G0Tn4
If the same default abbreviations were used as in VA Smalltalk, this would be
even cooler. No need to relearn.
Cheers,
Bernhard
Am 03.08.2016 um 10:56 schrieb Ben Coman <[email protected]>:
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
