[squeak-dev] Re: "find method" changes
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Thu Mar 11 09:05:16 UTC 2010
On 3/11/2010 12:59 AM, Michael Davies wrote:
> On 11 March 2010 04:26, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com
> <mailto: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,
> 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.
For the records (and as sort of a lame me too :-) I'm two thumbs up on
the ListChooser as well. It's much better than what was there.
> 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.
More information about the Squeak-dev