On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Lukas Renggli <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I guess I'm the one who made all this bad changes. > > So sorry, sorry sorry. > > I don't think so. > > > Maybe we can come back to the "old" one. > > No problem for me. > > I think the main problem is that the new editor model (which I really > like) was merged directly into the existing editor morphs, so > everything that uses more than just the morphs breaks. > > > I can make a slice in that direction. > > I am not sure if this is possible anymore, because now we have > dependencies on PluggableTextMorph and friends with the old API and > dependencies on PluggableTextMorph and friends with the new API. > > > But frankly, what a catastrophic mail for people who are trying > > to make the system cleaner. > > do you know how much of my free time I've spent to make the undo/redo > work again? > > Maybe one can just simply ask for help instead of blaming. > > I am *not criticizing* the system cleanup. I am criticizing the > changes that didn't go through a deprecation phase. I don't fully agree. We should deprecate certaing methods when it is really worth it. Deprecating each fucking method you remove its insane, overwork and I gues it will kill the process. There may be places that we didn't depreacte but should do it. But we cannot deprecate everything. Don't exagerate. > It started with > the introduction of the 'style' variable in a commonly used > superclass. The problem was discussed a long time ago and I was shut > up; today the problem turns out to be way worse. > > > OCompletion works and it includes ECompletion. Since I added a setting > > for using ECompletion instead of OCompletion (and not just as a fallback > > mechanism), ECompletion is also working with the new editors. > > I looked at the OCompletion changes and tried to merge them into > eCompletion, but as Francisco says it is only kinda working. > > Lukas > > -- > Lukas Renggli > www.lukas-renggli.ch > >
