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,
>     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.

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.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

>
>     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.
>
>
>
>