The kind of stuff I do not like with glamour

I was sending this email to doru but I forward it to moose-dev since other people use it and I would like to get more feedback on glamour.

browser
  row: [ :r | r column: #namespaces; column: #classes; column: #methods ];
  row: #details.


I do not like that row: is used to declare columns and at the same time with a name
to the row:


why this is not

        rowNamed: #details

then why

browser
        row: (Column with: {#namespaces classes methods)




Stef


_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

then

browser transmit to: #namespaces; andShow: [ :a |
   a tree
      display: [ :model | model allNamespaces select: [ :each | each isRoot ] ];
      children: [ :namespace | namespace childScopes ];
      format: [ :namespace | namespace stubFormattedName ] ].


why format: is not named formatItem: if this is what is does?
How as a reader should I know that format is sent to an item?
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

Hi Stef,

Thanks for looking into this. I think these kind of discussions are important.

The goal of this notation was to keep the language as simple as possible, but in this case it would indeed be better to have a different selector for the composite.

I do not like rowNamed: / columnNamed: because they are just too long. I will introduce a compositeRow: and compositeColumn: for the composite ones, and keep row: / column: for the single ones. As a transitory phase, we will still be able to send a block to row:/column: for a while.

Cheers,
Doru


On 30 Oct 2010, at 18:06, stephane ducasse wrote:

--
www.tudorgirba.com

"Value is always contextual."




_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

On Oct 30, 2010, at 9:23 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:

> Hi Stef,
>
> Thanks for looking into this. I think these kind of discussions are important.

yes this is why I send it. I will try to allocate some time to play with glamour. I was looking at GMSTBrowser or something like that too
but just browsing

>
> The goal of this notation was to keep the language as simple as possible, but in this case it would indeed be better to have a different selector for the composite.
>
> I do not like rowNamed: / columnNamed: because they are just too long. I will introduce a compositeRow: and compositeColumn: for the composite ones, and keep row: / column: for the single ones. As a transitory phase, we will still be able to send a block to row:/column: for a while.

ok
Everything that make glamour spec more smalltalkish and less block oriented is good to me. :)



_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev