On 11 March 2010 04:26, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> Michael, this is absolutely fantastic.  You seem to have read my mind
> with nearly every usability feature that you mentioned.  Nice code,
> too!
>
> That's very kind of you. Of course my thanks go to you for the inspiration
to look at this area, and to the existing ChooserTool and UserDialog which
have some interesting code in them.


> I love it.  May I assume an MIT license on this code?  If so, I would
> like to integrate this into the trunk, to replace ChooserTool.
>
> Yes, MIT licence is perfect. Please feel free to integrate the code.


> I do have a couple of questions.
>
>  - Is there a reason you chose to answer the index or 0 rather than
> the object selected or nil?  The only way this could possibly convey
> more information is if you have duplicate entries in the list, which
> seems very unlikely..  The cost is that the developer has to index
> back into some list, which may have originated from a non-Sequenceable
> collection, forcing him to keep create and remember transient one to
> index back into just to use it.
>
> As you saw, for compatibility with the ListChooser. On reflection, it's not
unreasonable to support #chooseIndexFrom:/#chooseItemFrom: methods.


>  - I'll take the filtering the way it is, but since you are obviously
> one who cares about refined usability, I will tell you what my one
> additional usability idea..  Order the results so that left-matches
> are before mid-string matches.
>
> I thought about this, but I'd only feel happy about presenting a mixed list
to the user if we could find a clear way to present that, and I wasn't up to
that on the first pass.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100311/7f78bb45/attachment.htm