Squeak 4.6 suggestion for default comment: change "a Foo is xxxxxxxxx" to "I "

> Hope I am not starting a religious war, but...
>
> I have found the idiom of "I " much easier to parse and edit rather than "A
> Dude is xxxxxxxxx" when entering class comments.
>
> With the former, I just position the mouse and start typing: 'I ' ->  'I act
> as a formal frabulator for the system frisbnitsk decompulation subprocess'.
> With the latter, I must delete the 'is xxxxxxxxx' before I start commenting:
> 'A Dude is xxxxxxxxx '  -> 'A Dude acts as a formal frabulator for the
> system frisbnitsk decompulation subprocess'
>
> The mental flow for the former is "think", "type".
> The mental flow for the latter is  "grrrrrr", "edit" , "think" , "type"
>
> The former offers the opportunity for different verbs right off the bat: "I
> am ", "I act" , "I perform " , "I flail"
> The latter requires we ponder the suitability of the verb "is", accept or
> reject its suitability (This is the time sink for me) , think of a new verb
> if rejected, delete the verb and type the verb.
>
>
> Scanning the Kernel-Class package, there is a lot of history surrounding
> Class comments so I can take the answer 'no' gracefully. 'yes' would be
> good, however. (:
>
> cheers.
>
>
> tty
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Hope I am not starting a religious war, but...
>
> I have found the idiom of "I " much easier to parse and edit rather than "A
> Dude is xxxxxxxxx" when entering class comments.
>
> With the former, I just position the mouse and start typing: 'I ' ->  'I act
> as a formal frabulator for the system frisbnitsk decompulation subprocess'.
> With the latter, I must delete the 'is xxxxxxxxx' before I start commenting:
> 'A Dude is xxxxxxxxx '  -> 'A Dude acts as a formal frabulator for the
> system frisbnitsk decompulation subprocess'
>
> The mental flow for the former is "think", "type".
> The mental flow for the latter is  "grrrrrr", "edit" , "think" , "type"
>
> The former offers the opportunity for different verbs right off the bat: "I
> am ", "I act" , "I perform " , "I flail"
> The latter requires we ponder the suitability of the verb "is", accept or
> reject its suitability (This is the time sink for me) , think of a new verb
> if rejected, delete the verb and type the verb.
>
>
> Scanning the Kernel-Class package, there is a lot of history surrounding
> Class comments so I can take the answer 'no' gracefully. 'yes' would be
> good, however. (:
>
> cheers.
>
>
> tty
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> On 11 May 2014, at 17:05, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Make it a question:
>
>
> Hi, this is ClassName, what do I do?
>
> Best
>    -Tobias
>
>> On 11.05.2014, at 17:49, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> That's a good point from the perspective of making the physical entry
>> of a class comment easier.  A default comment of "I " would saves two
>> keystrokes per class comment (instead of having to type Command+a, "I
>> ").
>>
>> The only possible disadvantage I can think of would be for newbies.
>> Simply, "I ", as a default comment does not provide an exemplar that
>> reveals the purpose of that pane as much as "A Dude is xxxxx".  A lone
>> "I " there might appear to them as something incomplete or a bug.
>> Maybe a balloon help on that pane explaining it could alleviate that
>> issue..
>>
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 6:41 AM, gettimothy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hope I am not starting a religious war, but...
>>>
>>> I have found the idiom of "I " much easier to parse and edit rather than "A
>>> Dude is xxxxxxxxx" when entering class comments.
>>>
>>> With the former, I just position the mouse and start typing: 'I ' ->  'I act
>>> as a formal frabulator for the system frisbnitsk decompulation subprocess'.
>>> With the latter, I must delete the 'is xxxxxxxxx' before I start commenting:
>>> 'A Dude is xxxxxxxxx '  -> 'A Dude acts as a formal frabulator for the
>>> system frisbnitsk decompulation subprocess'
>>>
>>> The mental flow for the former is "think", "type".
>>> The mental flow for the latter is  "grrrrrr", "edit" , "think" , "type"
>>>
>>> The former offers the opportunity for different verbs right off the bat: "I
>>> am ", "I act" , "I perform " , "I flail"
>>> The latter requires we ponder the suitability of the verb "is", accept or
>>> reject its suitability (This is the time sink for me) , think of a new verb
>>> if rejected, delete the verb and type the verb.
>>>
>>>
>>> Scanning the Kernel-Class package, there is a lot of history surrounding
>>> Class comments so I can take the answer 'no' gracefully. 'yes' would be
>>> good, however. (:
>>>
>>> cheers.
>>>
>>>
>>> tty
>
>