Hi Marcel,


> Keep it as simple as possible. Re-use and apply the UI that is already there. :-)

What do you mean by that? :-)

That we shouldn't add a FillInTheCodeBlankMorph at all (and never enjoy Shout & Autocompletion in dialogs)?
Or that we should write the arguments into the dialog message?

Another primitive, but functional solution might be to restore the method signature after every text edit. But this feels hacky ;-)

Best,
Christoph

________________________________
Von: Squeak-dev <squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org> im Auftrag von Taeumel, Marcel
Gesendet: Sonntag, 16. Februar 2020 12:42:52
An: Javier Diaz-Reinoso via Squeak-dev
Betreff: Re: [squeak-dev] Changeset: requestCode.cs

Keep it as simple as possible. Re-use and apply the UI that is already there. :-)

Best,
Marcel

Am 15.02.2020 19:47:02 schrieb Thiede, Christoph <christoph.thiede at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de>:

> Not sure I understand this correctly... is the requirement that you should be able to type right away without accidentally overwriting the boilerplate code of the operation? The surrounding block and its arguments in this case.

This is correct.

> Just mention the variable names that can be used in the prompt.

Hm ... This feels like a workaround ... For true Smalltalkers, it should be easier to understand a code signature than actually reading natural language.

> This makes them fix, but is it necessary to be able to change them?

At least it would be a cool feature, or would it be too cool?
________________________________
Von: Squeak-dev <squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org> im Auftrag von Jakob Reschke <forums.jakob at resfarm.de>
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Februar 2020 18:02:01
An: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
Betreff: Re: [squeak-dev] Changeset: requestCode.cs

Am Sa., 15. Feb. 2020 um 17:30 Uhr schrieb Thiede, Christoph
<Christoph.Thiede at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de>:
>
> Marcel gave the germane critique that such dialogs should preserve the possibility to replace the initial selection with a custom filter, without caring about any header, what's not possible with arguments at the moment.
>

Not sure I understand this correctly... is the requirement that you
should be able to type right away without accidentally overwriting the
boilerplate code of the operation? The surrounding block and its
arguments in this case.

If you just want an expression, why indicate asking for a complete
method text? If you avoid that, the question about ^ or not can be
avoided. Just mention the variable names that can be used in the
prompt. This makes them fix, but is it necessary to be able to change
them?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20200216/31da97f9/attachment.html>