2016-08-20 0:02 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 11:55 PM, Nicolai Hess <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > 2016-08-19 23:13 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[email protected]>: > > Hi, > > > > If you attache a certain action such as "result openInWorld” to a pragma > such as <interactiveExample>, it implies that when I have a different > resulting object that should be spawned with a different message (for > example, a Roassal view should be opened with "result open"), I should use > a different pragma. That will quickly lead to an explosion of pragmas. > > > > Cheers, > > Doru > > > > I would not attach any action to a pragma, but instead let the different > tools decide what to do. The pragma is just used to differentiate what the > method execution returns: > > > > <example> or <exampleCode> - a code or script example - don't care about > the returned object. A tool like Nautilus just provides a way to execute > the code ("play" - icon) nothing more. > > <script> - a code snippet for a more general use case (example or class > initialization). A tool like Nautilus just provices a way to execute the > code and for example, like it is now, show a growl notification with the > result > > <sample> or <sampleInstance> - code to create an instance. A tool like > Nautilus can just provide a way to execute the code and open an inspector > on the result. (The inspector itself can react differently for > > a morph -> inspectors morph tab > > a roassal view -> inspector tab for roassal view > > …. > > The inspector has the instance and can react to it. But, how can Nautilus > know what to do without the instance? For that you would need static > information. >
by the pragma name ? <example> -> execute <sample> -> execute and inspect <script> -> execute and show a growl information with the returned value. > > Doru > > > > I am for <example> for the first case, <exampleCode> is good as well, > but I like <example> more, and it is not uncommon to call some "code > examples" just "examples" > > <sample> for a method that creates "the interesting object", > <sampleInstance> is fine as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 10:32 AM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 19/8/16 à 10:18, Tudor Girba a écrit : > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> I strongly believe that the interaction should not be hardcoded in > the example pragma name. That is because you will want all sorts of > interactions once you go beyond the surface. For example, a Roassal > visualization, a Bloc element, and a Morph are all interesting from an > interaction point of view, but there are different ways to open them (and > having it polymorphic does not quite make sense). > > > > > > sorry but I cannot understand what you mean. > > > You suggest to use example > > > but not to have it polymorphic? > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Doru > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Aug 19, 2016, at 9:52 AM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Let me know. I do not care about examplar or sample. > > >>> > > >>> Let us pick one that works well. I thought about prototype but this > is too close to prototype based language. > > >>> > > >>> So we could get > > >>> > > >>> <interactiveExample> > > >>> > > >>> <sample>/<instance>/ > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Le 19/8/16 à 01:59, Ben Coman a écrit : > > >>>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo > > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> 2016-08-18 17:30 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont <[email protected]>: > > >>>>>> On 18/08/16 14:38, stepharo wrote: > > >>>>>>> Hi > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> In my projects I start to do the following: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I create <examplar> class method that returns an prototypical > instance. > > >>>>>> Nice. Excellent inititive. I'm not a native speaker, and > <exemplar> does not > > >>>>>> sound like the right name for this to me. That might be me being > dutch. > > >>>>>> Native speakers, is this the right name to use? > > >>>>> Semantically it is correct, but for me, also maybe by not being a > > >>>>> native English speaker, sounds weird. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I'd use something like "sample". However I'll be fine with whatever > > >>>>> you choose. But I'd choose something that doesn't sound weird to > > >>>>> native English readers, we already have some cases of that. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Regards, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Esteban A. Maringolo > > >>>>> > > >>>> In the previous thread I argued against <exemplar> and for <sample>, > > >>>> but I'm not so strong in my conviction to push it again :). The > > >>>> former is a little exotic, but is sufficient -- and perhaps its > useful > > >>>> <example> and <exemplar> sound similar with just a minor difference > at > > >>>> the end. > > >>>> > > >>>> P.S. In terms of discover-ability about this difference, a passing > > >>>> thought is it would be nice for newcomers to be able to hover over a > > >>>> code like a pragma and get a tool tip popup. > > >>>> > > >>>> cheers -ben > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> -- > > >> www.tudorgirba.com > > >> www.feenk.com > > >> > > >> "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know > her." > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > www.tudorgirba.com > > www.feenk.com > > > > "It's not how it is, it is how we see it." > > > > > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Obvious things are difficult to teach." > > > > > >
