[Pharo-project] New Text Completion suggestions

Fernando Olivero fernando.olivero at usi.ch
Fri Aug 24 01:45:05 CEST 2012

Igor, as usual your true object-oriented thinking helps us see a better path...

We need a customized UI interaction for Smalltalk, instead of asking
for TEXT editors devised for a different setup. What's missing is a
Smalltalk method shape(morph, etc...), highly customized for
editing/navigating statements written in the Smalltalk syntax. (
unless you want to code the methods using the workspace.....)

We can still preserve cmd-c for copy, and cmd-v for paste...IMO it's
not about inventing a new set of  keyboard shortcuts, but more about
manipulating objects at the right level of abstraction.


On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 August 2012 01:19, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> (a bit orthogonal)
>>> i don't understand why we cannot have own, consistent set which is good
>>> for us?
>>> vim, emacs..
>> better use sets which are already extremely familiar than invent yet another
>> set.  to those of us who use these editors (and we are legion) these sets
>> have long become almost subconscious to use.
> i know that.. i also came to squeak from outside..
> but as we say in Ukraine: don't enter others sanctuary with own
> code(set of rules).
>>> why this is so important ? Those editors were not written for editing
>>> smalltalk code in mind..
>>> they are best suited for big, hundreds lines of code, files..
>> they're the two most popular editors of their type.  lots of people use them
>> for other languages without IDE support.  They provide convenient power
>> features such as pattern replacement.  Not often I find myself filing out
>> Smalltalk code and editing it with vim (sadly I've never learned emacs).
> me too.. i never learned emacs. So, maybe i am completely ignorant and can't see
> why it is so important to have it there.. But then, i don't
> understand, why most of editors i know
> never had emacs/vim key bindings as option? Are they completely stupid? Huh?
> So, you know, if we follow that logic.. hey we don't have a unix command line..
> so maybe we should add an option: either workspace or command line?
> and then introduce nice terminal emulation with prompt, users and .bashrc ..
> ahh.. what the hell.. lets replicate whole unix environment.. imagine
> how many happy users will join us then!
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko.

More information about the Pharo-project mailing list