2016-08-20 18:29 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > > > On Aug 20, 2016, at 1:29 AM, Nicolai Hess <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > 2016-08-20 0:26 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[email protected]>: > > Hi, > > > > > On Aug 20, 2016, at 12:22 AM, Nicolai Hess <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > As I understood the discussion, one issue was to associate an action > that can be specific to an object, > > > > No, that wasn't what I meant. > > The question was, do we need two pragmas <example> and <examplar>, if > the <example> just opens a morph in the world instead of opening it in > inspector. > > And I would say "yes", because for some "examples" (look at the > <example> tagged methods for FastTable) it makes more sense to have the > morph in the > > world instead of the inspector. But I don't want to associate this > action #openInWorld to the pragma, instead, whoever writes the <example> > method, should decide. > > an <example> method for a morph should end with #openInWorld > > an <example> method for a spec model should end with #openWithSpec > > an <example> method for a roassal example should end with # > whateverIsUsedToOpenItInAView. > > > > In this case, you will not be able to use the resulting object, and the > new energy around examples started from the need to utilize that ability > The other solution is to delegate the action to another pragma that can > complement the example one. > > what is " the new energy around examples" ?
> Doru > > > and the example given was a morph that people might want to interact > with. This interaction would be achieved by sending openInWorld. But, maybe > I misunderstood. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Doru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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." > > > > -- > > www.tudorgirba.com > > www.feenk.com > > > > "Yesterday is a fact. > > Tomorrow is a possibility. > > Today is a challenge." > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "In a world where everything is moving ever faster, > one might have better chances to win by moving slower." > > > > > >
