2015-02-25 21:52 GMT+01:00 Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com>:

> > Morphic-cmm.760 still ignores what the user typed. It *explicitly*
> ignores it. If I have "bar)))))" and want to type another ")" after the
> "r", it does not let me. And that's not Right™ :)
>
> Anytime you have multiple consecutive closers of the same type, it
> doesn't matter whether you add it to the front or the end.  Just keep
> typing ) until you get there and it'll start adding.
>
>
Oh yes it does matter.
If I click to position the cursor and type some character, then yes i
expect some character to be inserted where I clicked.
If I want to do something special, then I prefer to tell it with some
special key combination (alt ctrl cmd esc whatever...).

Every other behaviour is a surprising hurdle suddenly raising in my way.
It forces my mind to shift focus on this damn editor than cannot do the
most simple thing.
Having to concentrate to guess how to make it understand what I want
instead of focusing on my own problem, is the exact definition for
disruptive.
That just mean that:
- the editor is restricted to a specific way of doing things instead of
being versatile,
- it's to the user to do things like the editor want them to be done,
rather than the contrary.


Bert, the way this went down was:  1) you complained with only
> emotion, 2) I asked for concrete clarification, 3) you clarified, 4) I
> went and (tried to) fix to your specification, 5) you complain about a
> new (non)problem.
>
> I think this is unfair here.
I feel this is a problem just like Bert think it's a problem.



> I'm trying to help here, but what is not helpful is to block any and
> all progress with these complaints about how these non-real-world
> use-cases aren't solved, and then to top it off, offering no guidance
> about what it SHOULD do.
>
> The real world use case is to let the most simple behaviour just work.

An editor that is kindly proposing an automatic completion is what I would
expect.
If it has a good matching ratio I'll eventually keep it up, otherwise it
will be another distraction that I prefer to switch off.

But an editor that is interpreting my input in a way that doesn't match my
will is the best candidate for trash bin.

I think Bert gave example of behaviour in a form of a link. Maybe that is
not detailed enough, but it's a guidance already.

It's clear this is more about you wanting to complicate the
> implementation with a stack.  If you have time for that go for it.  I
> won't do it because when I analyze the use-cases, it's clear that
> implementation is way overkill.  Not worth the effort nor the extra
> complexity.
>
>
A program that does not fullfil my expectations just for the sake of being
simple to implement is not of high value.
What matters more than implementation is a versatile and unsurprising
behavior of the editor.

That's why a majority of us simply prefer no auto-completion at all rather
than a broken one.
It can be a gadget to try in the Preferences if we're in the mood to, but
not the default behavior.



> Just be sure to please start it out in the Inbox first so I can offer
> my own critique..
>
>
Well, I feel sorry to write such mail that may seem much more violent than
it needs too.
I'd prefer to be more positive and helpful, but Chris, you have to
understand our griefs: we don't want compromise or workaround,
We want an editor that just works.

You are making progress and yet improving the gadget, but the minimum
features to make it acceptable is not yet there.
Please keep on :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20150225/33f39a4b/attachment.htm