On Oct 3, 2005, at 8:11 PM, tim Rowledge wrote:

>
> On 3-Oct-05, at 4:50 AM, Romain Robbes wrote:
>
>>
>> ok, I did a quick computation
>>
> .. ok and now let's consider the slowdown caused by cognitive  
> dissonance of a long-habitual and widely used facility being usurped.
>
> "In this window over here, I get 'normal' d-click behaviour and in  
> this window over here I get... whoops, why is it doing nothing? Oh  
> it's opening a window. Wassat for? Oh yeah, one of those. Dang. All  
> I wanted was to select the word to copy. Bugger"
>

Well, I did the computation for the double-click because that was the  
question asked, but it IS in my list to find something else.
I know it is disturbing to most people, so I'll find something else,  
probably triple click for now (since I think using the mouse
constantly is the best way for that). But it is still not cast in  
stone if I can find a scheme to easily parametrize this.

> Not to mention the other inconsistencies you'd be introducing -
> d-click next to a surrounding delimiter like {"'([ etc - would that  
> also show sender/implementors of the entire phrase? What does that  
> mean?

For this (not taking into account whether it is a double click or  
something else), I use the parse tree of the method, so it
will be the closest message or variable at the click point.

> drag select across a word/symbol; would that show the senders/ 
> implementors? For either answer, why?
>

With this scheme you don't need to select the text anymore. Then the  
convention I adopted is that if you see a message in the
body of the code, then you'll more likely be interested in the  
implementors. If you are interested in the senders of a message,
you can (n-)click on the method name. This means that you can see the  
senders by at least choosing an implementor
and then clicking on the title of the method.

I also thought of a way to reverse the behavior, but did not came  
around implementing it yet (well I tried with shift-clicking,
but the events seems to be swallowed most of the time).

> I appreciate the large effort you're putting into the whole  
> services thing but this smallish detail is a silly thing to get  
> hung up on when as I previously suggested there are much more  
> valuable improvements you could turn your talents to.
>

As I said, I'm not "hung up", sorry for not being clear about that.

Romain

> tim
> -- 
> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>
>
>
>

--
     Romain Robbes
     http://www.inf.unisi.ch/~robbes/