Limitations of Senders of Literals :-)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Limitations of Senders of Literals :-)

marcel.taeumel


The code representation of some literals is not preserved at runtime. :o)

Best,
Marcel


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Limitations of Senders of Literals :-)

Levente Uzonyi
That's what #browseMethodsWithSourceString: is for. Too bad it doesn't
have a shortcut.

Levente

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019, Marcel Taeumel wrote:

> [IMAGE]
>
> The code representation of some literals is not preserved at runtime. :o)
>
> Best,
> Marcel
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Limitations of Senders of Literals :-)

marcel.taeumel
I wonder whether [cmd]+[shift]+[n] should work on literals, too...



Currently, "references to it" only works with global identifiers such as class names.

Maybe the actual issue is that "references to it" does not work with literals? Well, I don't care whether that feature is triggered through [cmd]+[shift]+[n] or [cmd]+[n]...

Best,
Marcel

Am 03.12.2019 15:44:55 schrieb Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]>:

That's what #browseMethodsWithSourceString: is for. Too bad it doesn't
have a shortcut.

Levente

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019, Marcel Taeumel wrote:

> [IMAGE]
>
> The code representation of some literals is not preserved at runtime. :o)
>
> Best,
> Marcel
>
>