13102

Stephan Eggermont wrote

> I think 13102 is a showstopper. Can’t explain this to new users.

I don't have an opinion on this, but 'showstopper' ~= 'Can’t explain this to
new users'. Try explaining our Morphic implementation to new users ;-P

Hi!

Sorry for the late response... I'm covered with stuff to do lately.

To my understanding we are mixing these different issues:

1) whether the global shortcuts should have or not priority over local shortcuts. To my understanding that's what operating systems do. You cannot override alt+tab and if you intend, it will just not work. If any application can override alt+tab, the system will feel inconsistent for the users. So global shortcuts have priority with this intend: Not let the tools mess with what Pharo has decided the global shortcuts should be.

2) which are the actions that should be available globally though a shortcut. This deserves for sure a different discussion than 1). Should we put all tools in there? The more we put, the more difficult is to put shortcuts locally in tools. In any case I think this is orthogonal to 1).

3) are the shortcuts we chose for the tools the right ones? I think the "prefixed" shortcuts chosen for the tools were thought as a kind of namespace for the shortcuts. Again, I find this orthogonal to 1).

4) About the collision issue. First, it is an issue that appeared when people started to use keymappings :). The original intent was to let the user manage the collisions, because I find there is not a perfect solution.

  - if we make first single, then complex matching only local to a morph, then a complex match from a child would override a single match from a parent.

  - if we make first single, then complex matching *all over the hierarchy*, we may find a single match from a parent overriding a complex shortcut of a child.

A second issue, partially related to the resolution strategy, is the Set that should not be there because it provides a random ingredient. However, at the same time it makes you think about not creating collisions in the same morph :). Actually, if you remove the randomness and configure a morph with:

 cmd+a => do something

 cmd+a, cmd+b => do other something

Either the first or the second will never be executed depending on the strategy you choose (first single then complex, or the opposite). So I find this a buggy configuration, randomness or not randomness.

Cheers,

Guille

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

I agree that the behavior is not ideal, but it only occurs when you have collisions. And of course it would be great to have everything working perfectly, but at this point it is more important to release. That is why, in my book, it is more important to reduce the impact (fast) than it is to solve it properly (slow).

The problem was noticed in few cases. I for one only noticed it after the global shortcuts were introduced in the image. Hence, it is very likely to achieve a good enough state with little effort by removing the shortcuts.

Of course, if someone else does have a better solution, he can propose it, but it has to be concrete and doubled by the effort that comes with developing and testing it :)

Doru

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 3:22 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tudor,

an implementation which randomly determines which shortcut will match is a bug to me, and one worthy of being solved before release.

Why wouldn't Moose alone desactivate the global shortcuts if that seems the solution?

Thierry

---

De : Pharo-dev [[hidden email]] de la part de Tudor Girba [[hidden email]]
Envoyé : lundi 14 avril 2014 15:15

À : Pharo Development List
Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] 13102

Hi,

Sorry for not replying before but I was offline. This issue is not to fix Keymapping at this point. The current solution was designed with intent to work in the current way. We can certainly discuss about fixing it, but the solution is not for Pharo 3.

The current discussion is about disabling the global shortcuts for opening the Workspace and other tools. In the Moose image, we disable those shortcuts because with the current implementation of Keymapping having complicated global keybindings simply leads to problems (for example, we cannot use Cmd+o for anything). Do not get me wrong: Keymapping is an excellent contribution that simplified a lot an important area. My suggestion is to remove the global mappings for Pharo 3.0, and then continue to work on getting Keymappings to an even better state.

Doru

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:49 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Esteban, Marcus,

in that particular case, I would propose the following simple fix which could solve the first impression.
- Document global shortcuts, ensure that they are single key.
  - Document an overload (or not) effect when your app redefines a global shortcut.
- Change a bit Keymapping so that single key shortcuts match first.

This would solve the immediate problem and let us time to consider a more complex solution for Pharo 4.

Thierry
________________________________________
De : Pharo-dev [[hidden email]] de la part de Esteban Lorenzano [[hidden email]]
Envoyé : lundi 14 avril 2014 14:39
À : Pharo Development List
Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] 13102

On 14 Apr 2014, at 14:28, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 13 Apr 2014, at 11:26, Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Marcus,
>>
>> I think 13102 is a showstopper. Can’t explain this to new users.
>>

sorry, but I have to disagree… this is an important problem, I agree.
But fix that will need (AFAIK) a lot of work and probably a revamp of the keybindings in system.
Also… this problem was (again, AFAIK) present since pharo2 and we have been able to continue working even with that annoyance.

We will always have problems to fix. And we still have many *really important* problem to fix. But if we do not release even with some bugs, we will never release.

"Show stopper” IMO, is a bug that prevents the system to continue working. Explain to students an annoyance in the system is bad, but not show stopper.

so… I’m with Marcus. We can delay this fix. But I also believe this kind of problems are a “shoot in the foot”, not good for attract newcomers.
That’s why we are suggesting that Pharo4 should centred on the tooling: we have the feeling that out tools are one (or several) step(s) behind the power that pharo has.

Esteban

>
> The question is do we hold up the release for it?
> That is: is not releasing better than releasing with this?
>
> How long do we stop releasing, considering that we will not find
> anyone to fix it?
>
>       Marcus
>
>

--

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

--

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi!

Sorry for the late response... I'm covered with stuff to do lately.

To my understanding we are mixing these different issues:

1) whether the global shortcuts should have or not priority over local shortcuts. To my understanding that's what operating systems do. You cannot override alt+tab and if you intend, it will just not work. If any application can override alt+tab, the system will feel inconsistent for the users. So global shortcuts have priority with this intend: Not let the tools mess with what Pharo has decided the global shortcuts should be.

2) which are the actions that should be available globally though a shortcut. This deserves for sure a different discussion than 1). Should we put all tools in there? The more we put, the more difficult is to put shortcuts locally in tools. In any case I think this is orthogonal to 1).

3) are the shortcuts we chose for the tools the right ones? I think the "prefixed" shortcuts chosen for the tools were thought as a kind of namespace for the shortcuts. Again, I find this orthogonal to 1).

4) About the collision issue. First, it is an issue that appeared when people started to use keymappings :). The original intent was to let the user manage the collisions, because I find there is not a perfect solution.

  - if we make first single, then complex matching only local to a morph, then a complex match from a child would override a single match from a parent.

  - if we make first single, then complex matching *all over the hierarchy*, we may find a single match from a parent overriding a complex shortcut of a child.

Just to complete my thoughts and provide my position about this issue. I would rather go for the first solution: favor local over global resolution because we will find less bugs.

 

A second issue, partially related to the resolution strategy, is the Set that should not be there because it provides a random ingredient. However, at the same time it makes you think about not creating collisions in the same morph :). Actually, if you remove the randomness and configure a morph with:

 cmd+a => do something

 cmd+a, cmd+b => do other something

Either the first or the second will never be executed depending on the strategy you choose (first single then complex, or the opposite). So I find this a buggy configuration, randomness or not randomness.

Cheers,

Guille

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

I agree that the behavior is not ideal, but it only occurs when you have collisions. And of course it would be great to have everything working perfectly, but at this point it is more important to release. That is why, in my book, it is more important to reduce the impact (fast) than it is to solve it properly (slow).

The problem was noticed in few cases. I for one only noticed it after the global shortcuts were introduced in the image. Hence, it is very likely to achieve a good enough state with little effort by removing the shortcuts.

Of course, if someone else does have a better solution, he can propose it, but it has to be concrete and doubled by the effort that comes with developing and testing it :)

Doru

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 3:22 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tudor,

an implementation which randomly determines which shortcut will match is a bug to me, and one worthy of being solved before release.

Why wouldn't Moose alone desactivate the global shortcuts if that seems the solution?

Thierry

---

De : Pharo-dev [[hidden email]] de la part de Tudor Girba [[hidden email]]
Envoyé : lundi 14 avril 2014 15:15

À : Pharo Development List
Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] 13102

Hi,

Sorry for not replying before but I was offline. This issue is not to fix Keymapping at this point. The current solution was designed with intent to work in the current way. We can certainly discuss about fixing it, but the solution is not for Pharo 3.

The current discussion is about disabling the global shortcuts for opening the Workspace and other tools. In the Moose image, we disable those shortcuts because with the current implementation of Keymapping having complicated global keybindings simply leads to problems (for example, we cannot use Cmd+o for anything). Do not get me wrong: Keymapping is an excellent contribution that simplified a lot an important area. My suggestion is to remove the global mappings for Pharo 3.0, and then continue to work on getting Keymappings to an even better state.

Doru

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:49 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Esteban, Marcus,

in that particular case, I would propose the following simple fix which could solve the first impression.
- Document global shortcuts, ensure that they are single key.
  - Document an overload (or not) effect when your app redefines a global shortcut.
- Change a bit Keymapping so that single key shortcuts match first.

This would solve the immediate problem and let us time to consider a more complex solution for Pharo 4.

Thierry
________________________________________
De : Pharo-dev [[hidden email]] de la part de Esteban Lorenzano [[hidden email]]
Envoyé : lundi 14 avril 2014 14:39
À : Pharo Development List
Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] 13102

On 14 Apr 2014, at 14:28, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 13 Apr 2014, at 11:26, Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Marcus,
>>
>> I think 13102 is a showstopper. Can’t explain this to new users.
>>

sorry, but I have to disagree… this is an important problem, I agree.
But fix that will need (AFAIK) a lot of work and probably a revamp of the keybindings in system.
Also… this problem was (again, AFAIK) present since pharo2 and we have been able to continue working even with that annoyance.

We will always have problems to fix. And we still have many *really important* problem to fix. But if we do not release even with some bugs, we will never release.

"Show stopper” IMO, is a bug that prevents the system to continue working. Explain to students an annoyance in the system is bad, but not show stopper.

so… I’m with Marcus. We can delay this fix. But I also believe this kind of problems are a “shoot in the foot”, not good for attract newcomers.
That’s why we are suggesting that Pharo4 should centred on the tooling: we have the feeling that out tools are one (or several) step(s) behind the power that pharo has.

Esteban

>
> The question is do we hold up the release for it?
> That is: is not releasing better than releasing with this?
>
> How long do we stop releasing, considering that we will not find
> anyone to fix it?
>
>       Marcus
>
>

--

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

--

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi!

Sorry for the late response... I'm covered with stuff to do lately.

To my understanding we are mixing these different issues:

1) whether the global shortcuts should have or not priority over local shortcuts. To my understanding that's what operating systems do. You cannot override alt+tab and if you intend, it will just not work. If any application can override alt+tab, the system will feel inconsistent for the users. So global shortcuts have priority with this intend: Not let the tools mess with what Pharo has decided the global shortcuts should be.

2) which are the actions that should be available globally though a shortcut. This deserves for sure a different discussion than 1). Should we put all tools in there? The more we put, the more difficult is to put shortcuts locally in tools. In any case I think this is orthogonal to 1).

3) are the shortcuts we chose for the tools the right ones? I think the "prefixed" shortcuts chosen for the tools were thought as a kind of namespace for the shortcuts. Again, I find this orthogonal to 1).

4) About the collision issue. First, it is an issue that appeared when people started to use keymappings :). The original intent was to let the user manage the collisions, because I find there is not a perfect solution.

  - if we make first single, then complex matching only local to a morph, then a complex match from a child would override a single match from a parent.

  - if we make first single, then complex matching *all over the hierarchy*, we may find a single match from a parent overriding a complex shortcut of a child.

Just to complete my thoughts and provide my position about this issue. I would rather go for the first solution: favor local over global resolution because we will find less bugs.

And here I meant by global resolution = *all over the hierarchy*, silly me, I'm hungry.

 

A second issue, partially related to the resolution strategy, is the Set that should not be there because it provides a random ingredient. However, at the same time it makes you think about not creating collisions in the same morph :). Actually, if you remove the randomness and configure a morph with:

 cmd+a => do something

 cmd+a, cmd+b => do other something

Either the first or the second will never be executed depending on the strategy you choose (first single then complex, or the opposite). So I find this a buggy configuration, randomness or not randomness.

Cheers,

Guille

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

I agree that the behavior is not ideal, but it only occurs when you have collisions. And of course it would be great to have everything working perfectly, but at this point it is more important to release. That is why, in my book, it is more important to reduce the impact (fast) than it is to solve it properly (slow).

The problem was noticed in few cases. I for one only noticed it after the global shortcuts were introduced in the image. Hence, it is very likely to achieve a good enough state with little effort by removing the shortcuts.

Of course, if someone else does have a better solution, he can propose it, but it has to be concrete and doubled by the effort that comes with developing and testing it :)

Doru

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 3:22 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tudor,

an implementation which randomly determines which shortcut will match is a bug to me, and one worthy of being solved before release.

Why wouldn't Moose alone desactivate the global shortcuts if that seems the solution?

Thierry

---

De : Pharo-dev [[hidden email]] de la part de Tudor Girba [[hidden email]]
Envoyé : lundi 14 avril 2014 15:15

À : Pharo Development List
Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] 13102

Hi,

Sorry for not replying before but I was offline. This issue is not to fix Keymapping at this point. The current solution was designed with intent to work in the current way. We can certainly discuss about fixing it, but the solution is not for Pharo 3.

The current discussion is about disabling the global shortcuts for opening the Workspace and other tools. In the Moose image, we disable those shortcuts because with the current implementation of Keymapping having complicated global keybindings simply leads to problems (for example, we cannot use Cmd+o for anything). Do not get me wrong: Keymapping is an excellent contribution that simplified a lot an important area. My suggestion is to remove the global mappings for Pharo 3.0, and then continue to work on getting Keymappings to an even better state.

Doru

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:49 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Esteban, Marcus,

in that particular case, I would propose the following simple fix which could solve the first impression.
- Document global shortcuts, ensure that they are single key.
  - Document an overload (or not) effect when your app redefines a global shortcut.
- Change a bit Keymapping so that single key shortcuts match first.

This would solve the immediate problem and let us time to consider a more complex solution for Pharo 4.

Thierry
________________________________________
De : Pharo-dev [[hidden email]] de la part de Esteban Lorenzano [[hidden email]]
Envoyé : lundi 14 avril 2014 14:39
À : Pharo Development List
Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] 13102

On 14 Apr 2014, at 14:28, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 13 Apr 2014, at 11:26, Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Marcus,
>>
>> I think 13102 is a showstopper. Can’t explain this to new users.
>>

sorry, but I have to disagree… this is an important problem, I agree.
But fix that will need (AFAIK) a lot of work and probably a revamp of the keybindings in system.
Also… this problem was (again, AFAIK) present since pharo2 and we have been able to continue working even with that annoyance.

We will always have problems to fix. And we still have many *really important* problem to fix. But if we do not release even with some bugs, we will never release.

"Show stopper” IMO, is a bug that prevents the system to continue working. Explain to students an annoyance in the system is bad, but not show stopper.

so… I’m with Marcus. We can delay this fix. But I also believe this kind of problems are a “shoot in the foot”, not good for attract newcomers.
That’s why we are suggesting that Pharo4 should centred on the tooling: we have the feeling that out tools are one (or several) step(s) behind the power that pharo has.

Esteban

>
> The question is do we hold up the release for it?
> That is: is not releasing better than releasing with this?
>
> How long do we stop releasing, considering that we will not find
> anyone to fix it?
>
>       Marcus
>
>

--

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

--

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"