2010/3/11 Michael Davies <mykdavies+squeak at gmail.com>:
>
>
> 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.
>

Sorry for the stupid question, doesn't it have to be a bit more formal ?

Nicolas

>>
>> 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.
>
>
>
>
>