hmmmm. Maybe 'puts' could be an alias for 'debug' or 'info'? That keeps it from mucking up the layout. In any case both 'debug' and 'info' should give the line number from the users code, rather than from shoes.rb, don't you think?
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 5:26 AM, Hugh Sasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, _why wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 02:52:56PM +0100, Hugh Sasse wrote: >> >>> There are a couple of difficulties for people who try to use Shoes >>> with the knowledge that it is Ruby based. The first is that for >>> "What is going on?" type diagnostics, they are likely to use puts. >>> >> >> This is exactly the problem just witnessed with Jean Lazarou. If >> all the `puts` had been `para`, the script works fine. >> > > Yes :-) > >> >> Many ruby examples do just that. The trouble with that is that in >>> shoes the output doesn't go anywhere. I'd suggest that it should go >>> to the errors console if there is no tty, or maybe regardless of >>> whether there is a tty because people forget conditionals. >>> >> >> How about I make `puts` an alias for `para` and then if it's used >> outside of an app block, the normal `puts` gets called? >> > > I think that is a good solution. The only problems I see with that, > is that paras add structure to the display, it creates a new "slot". > So if you have puts in a loop as you would in ruby, your GUI layout > will take a beating :-) But maybe that will warn people to use a para > properly and redraw it when this happens. So your suggestion > is the simplest change that would bring the most benefit now. It would > thus get the blessing of the eXtreme Programming people. :-) > >> >> I agree with you on all your points, Hugh. >> >> Folks, this fellow Hugh Sasse has been around on my lists for many >> years now and he's just been such a delightful guy. Thankyugh! >> > > Thank you. I've stuck around on these lists because of the wild > creativity, and astounding skill in programming, has been an > encouragement to me. > > >> _why >> >> Hugh >
