Hi All,
first, excuse the venting. Who the %*&^$# decided to inflict the "always type a matching open/close pair" when typing any of ( [ { etc on us? Would that person please consider commiting hara kiri?
OK, now slightly calmer, I find it /exceedingly/ annoying. Is this really an appropriate default? How does one turn it off? The cases that send me up my *&%$^# tree are when I intend to add a single one in front of some string when I go back to edit some text (e.g. add an exception handler around some phrase). Here, typing the pair *is just broken*. Doing it at the end of a text or at the end of line is defensible. Doing it always IS F*&^%$*G BROKEN.
unhappily, Eliot
|
On 17-04-2014, at 11:59 AM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi All, > > first, excuse the venting. Who the %*&^$# decided to inflict the "always type a matching open/close pair" when typing any of ( [ { etc on us? Would that person please consider commiting hara kiri? > > OK, now slightly calmer, I find it /exceedingly/ annoying. Is this really an appropriate default? How does one turn it off? > > > The cases that send me up my *&%$^# tree are when I intend to add a single one in front of some string when I go back to edit some text (e.g. add an exception handler around some phrase). Here, typing the pair *is just broken*. Doing it at the end of a text or at the end of line is defensible. Doing it always IS F*&^%$*G BROKEN. I’m not keen on it as a default either. Fortunately we had a rant about it just the other day so I know how to rurn it off - dig out the Auto enclose option in ‘Morphic’. Not, by the way, in ‘morphic’. How did we end up with two categories differing only in capitalisation? You might want to turn off ‘Multi-window browsers’ and ‘Reuse windos’ in ‘browsing too. Drives me nuts. tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Thesaurus: Ancient reptile with a truly extensive vocabulary |
In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
Amen, brother. The preference is called 'Auto Enclose' and you can find it under the Morphic category.
Colin |
In reply to this post by timrowledge
On 17-04-2014, at 12:20 PM, tim Rowledge <[hidden email]> wrote: > You might want to turn off ‘Multi-window browsers’ and ‘Reuse windos’ in ‘browsing too. Drives me nuts. Oh, and also ‘Shout styling in Workspace’. And ‘swapMouseButtons’ in ‘general’. And ‘block argument assignment’, ‘menuAppearance3d’, ‘gradientMenu’, ‘menuWithIcons’, anything to do with roundedBlahCorners, ‘scrollBarsOnRIght’. tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim All the simple programs have been written, and all the good names taken. |
In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2
See the 'How do I convince a Workspace to stop "helping" me?' thread for
previous rants and rationalizations ;-) http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2014-April/177810.html > Hi All, > > first, excuse the venting. Who the %*&^$# decided to inflict the > "always type a matching open/close pair" when typing any of ( [ { etc on > us? Would that person please consider commiting hara kiri? > > OK, now slightly calmer, I find it /exceedingly/ annoying. Is this really > an appropriate default? How does one turn it off? > > > The cases that send me up my *&%$^# tree are when I intend to add a single > one in front of some string when I go back to edit some text (e.g. add an > exception handler around some phrase). Here, typing the pair *is just > broken*. Doing it at the end of a text or at the end of line is > defensible. Doing it always IS F*&^%$*G BROKEN. > > -- > unhappily, > Eliot > > |
In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi All, > > first, excuse the venting. Who the %*&^$# decided to inflict the "always > type a matching open/close pair" when typing any of ( [ { etc on us? Would > that person please consider commiting hara kiri? > > OK, now slightly calmer, I find it /exceedingly/ annoying. Is this really > an appropriate default? How does one turn it off? > > > The cases that send me up my *&%$^# tree are when I intend to add a single > one in front of some string when I go back to edit some text (e.g. add an > exception handler around some phrase). Here, typing the pair *is just > broken*. Doing it at the end of a text or at the end of line is defensible. > Doing it always IS F*&^%$*G BROKEN. Calm down, won't you? If you need to add an exception handler around some phrase, why not just highlight the phrase and press Command+[ to surround it with brackets. Some people like to "edit text" and some people like to "edit expressions". Personally, I find "editing text" pretty old-school, and a lot more tedious.. |
In reply to this post by timrowledge
> You might want to turn off ‘Multi-window browsers’ and ‘Reuse windos’ in ‘browsing too. Drives me nuts.
Wow, that Multi-window browsers option is UI-evil incarnate! I really don't understand why people just LOVE _modal_ UI's and modal browsing. :) Modal browsing is so cumbersome and impossible to follow anything. Just curious why don't you like Reuse Windows? That saves me from accidentally accumulating 15 windows opened on the same class, without stopping me from easily duplicating a window if I need to.. |
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-3
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
So do it *when there's an expression to enclose*, not every time you type the character. Some people like to "edit text" and some people like to "edit You know, one can type non-Smalltalk in SMalltalk (class comments, snippets of HTML, angry messages to Squeak-dev), not just platonic Smalltalk. And the Auto-enclose crap doesn't help there.
Anyway, I can turn it off. Hope no noobs will be equally irritated... I still love you Chris, Eliot
|
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-3
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: --
You do know about alt-enclose don't you? best, Eliot
|
In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> > Hi All, >> > >> > first, excuse the venting. Who the %*&^$# decided to inflict the >> > "always >> > type a matching open/close pair" when typing any of ( [ { etc on us? >> > Would >> > that person please consider commiting hara kiri? >> > >> > OK, now slightly calmer, I find it /exceedingly/ annoying. Is this >> > really >> > an appropriate default? How does one turn it off? >> > >> > >> > The cases that send me up my *&%$^# tree are when I intend to add a >> > single >> > one in front of some string when I go back to edit some text (e.g. add >> > an >> > exception handler around some phrase). Here, typing the pair *is just >> > broken*. Doing it at the end of a text or at the end of line is >> > defensible. >> > Doing it always IS F*&^%$*G BROKEN. >> >> Calm down, won't you? If you need to add an exception handler around >> some phrase, why not just highlight the phrase and press Command+[ to >> surround it with brackets. > > > So do it *when there's an expression to enclose*, not every time you type > the character. Because, by doing the above, there are no cases left to need an open paren / bracket / quote without the corresponding close. But when I'm typing multiple nested levels of parentheses and blocks, I don't like to have to tediously match them up when the machine can do it for me. >> Some people like to "edit text" and some people like to "edit >> expressions". Personally, I find "editing text" pretty old-school, >> and a lot more tedious.. > > You know, one can type non-Smalltalk in SMalltalk (class comments, snippets > of HTML, angry messages to Squeak-dev), not just platonic Smalltalk. And > the Auto-enclose crap doesn't help there. Well it does, for the same reason. Whether typing code, prose, comments, snippets or HTML, a close-parenthesis is sure to need to follow an open.. I thought Alejandro's argument was somewhat entertaining, "if you need to be typing so many nested levels it speaks about your bad code.." Maybe, but sometimes you have to balance against number of tiny methods and the language needs to support it no matter what, so may as well make it easy. :) |
On 17-04-2014, at 1:54 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: > Well it does, for the same reason. Whether typing code, prose, > comments, snippets or HTML, a close-parenthesis is sure to need to > follow an open.. Really? What if the close is already there because you’re edit text? Oh, wait, we’re supposed to be too cool to edit text these days… I claim that the reasonable position is that simple typing simply types. Clever extras ought to involve a tiny bit of extra work, such as alt-( or alt-CR etc. tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Strange OpCodes: SG: Show Garbage |
In reply to this post by David T. Lewis
Ok found it!
World Menu > open... > Preferences Browser > Select Morphic (No not the morphic with lower case m) Disable "Auto Enclose" Woo hoo. You can now go about your business in your once again serene world! All the best, Ron Teitelbaum Head Of Engineering 3d Immersive Collaboration Consulting [hidden email] Follow Me On Twitter: @RonTeitelbaum www.3dicc.com https://www.google.com/+3dicc > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:squeak- > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of David T. Lewis > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:11 PM > To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list > Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] open paren/brace/bracket... > > See the 'How do I convince a Workspace to stop "helping" me?' thread for > previous rants and rationalizations ;-) > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2014- > April/177810.html > > > Hi All, > > > > first, excuse the venting. Who the %*&^$# decided to inflict the > > "always type a matching open/close pair" when typing any of ( [ { etc > > on us? Would that person please consider commiting hara kiri? > > > > OK, now slightly calmer, I find it /exceedingly/ annoying. Is this > > an appropriate default? How does one turn it off? > > > > > > The cases that send me up my *&%$^# tree are when I intend to add a > > single one in front of some string when I go back to edit some text > > (e.g. add an exception handler around some phrase). Here, typing the > > pair *is just broken*. Doing it at the end of a text or at the end of > > line is defensible. Doing it always IS F*&^%$*G BROKEN. > > > > -- > > unhappily, > > Eliot > > > > > > > |
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-3
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: Some people like to "edit text" and some people like to "edit You know, I bet this boils down to a simple cost-benefit analysis. For me, the effort required to type a character at the cursor position is negligible, so saving that effort is of little benefit. Even
in cases where I will need to put a $) after the expression I'm typing now, sometimes I'll have to type right-arrow to get past it. So the benefit is very small and often offset by a small loss.
Similarly, deleting an unwanted character is cheap, but deciding whether to do so is a huge cost. I have to stop thinking about what I'm doing, and think ahead to what I'm going to do next. Even
if I know I'm going to need the closing character, it stays in my field of view and takes up cycles as a pending thing that I have to worry about until I complete the encoded expression. So, the benefit is small and unreliable, while the cost is large and inevitable. It forces me to think about typing, which normally I don't have to do. Thus, it's infuriating. However, that calculus is very personal. If typing a character took, say, 10x longer, or I had to look at the keyboard to find the character, the benefit would be much more significant. Also, if I had to
think about where the keys are, then deciding whether or not to delete the character wouldn't be an interruption; it would just get folded into the "thinking about typing" that I'd do.
So it probably has more to do with how fast we type than how we think about coding or "editing text" or even familiarity. Colin |
2014-04-18 0:56 GMT+02:00 Colin Putney <[hidden email]>:
Very well said. Typing text is not only pretty old-school, it can be pretty low level too. Forcing us to think (high level) during a low level activity is pretty disrupting, upsetting and inefficient. That's precisely why I got exactly the same repulsion to these automated help that constantly break my own automated flow... Maybe we could train ourselves and adapt to these auto-enclose, but this will then break our flow anywhere outside Squeak, so I simply do not wish to. Nicolas |
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-3
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:12:04PM -0500, Chris Muller wrote:
> > Some people like to "edit text" and some people like to "edit > expressions". Personally, I find "editing text" pretty old-school, > and a lot more tedious.. I like to edit my shopping list in a workspace. It would be great if this could consist of executable expressions that produced groceries on my doorstep, but alas that feature remains unimplemented. Meanwhile, having a syntax assistant interfering with my typing is an annoyance, rather like that little paper clip assistant that Microsoft decided that we were all going to love a few years ago. On second thought, maybe it's not such a bad idea ... I bet Tim could do an animated squeaky mouse morph (after all, the eyes are already working). We could have it detect typing activity, then scurry around the insertion cursor leaving little mouse droppings that turn into syntax suggestions. We might need to make it a preference though ;-) Dave |
On 17-04-2014, at 4:27 PM, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote: > On second thought, maybe it's not such a bad idea ... I bet Tim could > do an animated squeaky mouse morph (after all, the eyes are already working). > We could have it detect typing activity, then scurry around the insertion > cursor leaving little mouse droppings that turn into syntax suggestions. > We might need to make it a preference though ;-) Sadly I can’t claim great expertise in making animate morphy-things. Getting the damn things to just lay out where I want them and stay there is *quite* exciting enough, thank you. tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Strange OpCodes: SD: Self Destruct |
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 04:42:19PM -0700, tim Rowledge wrote:
> > On 17-04-2014, at 4:27 PM, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On second thought, maybe it's not such a bad idea ... I bet Tim could > > do an animated squeaky mouse morph (after all, the eyes are already working). > > We could have it detect typing activity, then scurry around the insertion > > cursor leaving little mouse droppings that turn into syntax suggestions. > > We might need to make it a preference though ;-) > > Sadly I can?t claim great expertise in making animate morphy-things. > Getting the damn things to just lay out where I want them and stay there > is *quite* exciting enough, thank you. > That's not a show stopper. Having the animated thing hop around and position itself unexpectedly is exactly the behaviour I had in mind. We will want sound effects of course, particularly in the case of keyboard input that triggers a lint rule exception. Dave |
In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier
Thanks for that great explanation -- (my interest in in man-machine
interfaces has always made this an interesting topic for me). I've got to say, I totally get you. I know exactly how you feel because its exactly how I feel about "Auto Indent". I drives me nuts in exactly the ways you've described about Auto Enclose, and for the same exact reasons. It totally intrudes on my typing, disrupting my train of thought because its guessing wrong half the time and forcing me into a bunch of little "decisions" whether I need to press Tab or Backspace. I know what I want to type, I just want to let-it-flow. This made me pause to ask, "so why do I like Auto Enclose so much, but not Auto Indent?" It's because of Squeak's amazing little collection of 2 or 3 editing features turn it into like a poor-mans Scratch. You know, the ones we've been talking about: 1) selecting innards, 2) hot-key adding/removing of surrounding enclosures, 3) auto format. Once using those, Auto Enclose rounds it out nicely, (and disabling selectionMayShrink boosts it even one more notch). >> You know, I bet this boils down to a simple cost-benefit analysis. For me, >> the effort required to >> type a character at the cursor position is negligible, so saving that >> effort is of little benefit. Even >> in cases where I will need to put a $) after the expression I'm typing >> now, sometimes I'll have to >> type right-arrow to get past it. So the benefit is very small and often >> offset by a small loss. It's not about saving keystrokes. It's about automatic closure of multiple nested expressions. Query's like this are almost impossible to "type" without Auto Enclose: ^ (cube plot: [ : dim | dim date month ] measures: [ : meas | (meas mean score plotNumber: 1) , ((meas define: #fractionOfWinners as: [ : cell | cell total winnerCount / cell total count ]) plotNumber: 2) , (meas mean gainFactor plotNumber: 3; colorizer: [ : val | val > 0 ifTrue: [Color green twiceDarker] ifFalse: [ Color red twiceDarker ] ]) ] where: [ : cell | (cell dimension date year equalTo: Date today asYear) | (cell dimension date year equalTo: Date today asYear previous) ]) open It'd be much more easily "assembled", expression by expression, but Auto Enclose gives typing it at least a chance of success. :) >> Similarly, deleting an unwanted character is cheap, but deciding whether >> to do so is a huge cost. >> I have to stop thinking about what I'm doing, and think ahead to what I'm >> going to do next. Even >> if I know I'm going to need the closing character, it stays in my field of >> view and takes up cycles >> as a pending thing that I have to worry about until I complete the encoded >> expression. So I'm surprised you don't better appreciate the atomicity of expression-editing. Deleting a paren/brace/quote character breaks the code and even breaks the formatter so you can get really stuck on complex expressions. Taking an approach of expression-editing, one is determined not to let the code ever be broken even for a short period of time. >> So, the benefit is small and unreliable, while the cost is large and >> inevitable. It forces me to think >> about typing, which normally I don't have to do. Thus, it's infuriating. Yep, I totally get you. But if you ever decide to try committing to Squeak's very capable expression-editing functions, I hope it'll work out as well for you as for me. |
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
Wow. The condescension here is breathtaking. I tried really hard to explain why some of us have such a strong reaction to this feature. But you don't seem to care,
and refuse to accept "to each his own" as an answer. I'm not going to post further on this topic, except to help people find the preference. Colin
|
>> Yep, I totally get you. But if you ever decide to try committing to
>> Squeak's very capable expression-editing functions, I hope it'll work >> out as well for you as for me. > > > Wow. The condescension here is breathtaking. I tried really hard to explain > why > some of us have such a strong reaction to this feature. But you don't seem > to care, > and refuse to accept "to each his own" as an answer. > > I'm not going to post further on this topic, except to help people find the > preference. Whoa whoa there! Sheesh, I made extra effort to write that whole note with "love" man! There is NO condescension at all here! I told you I "get you" and even explained how I relate to your strong reaction via Auto Indent. I do! I'm reading it and not getting why you're insulted. :( You feel I'm saying you're stupid for not using it? No, I never would, because that's not what I think about you. Your cost-benefit was based on keystrokes, so I'm simply saying, from another angle, there's a gold nugget there. Discovering Squeak gold is a great experience I hope you, myself and others will enjoy again. |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |