Re: how to hide ALL connectors to/from a specific node in the Connectors package?
karl ramberg <[email protected]> Sun, 22 Sep 2013 20:09:02 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.squeakland |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAGzzWLh8p+uZqROoAc6aBU5MSp9qMWEPJgGxZw8_won6QgM43Q@mail.gmail.com> |
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[email protected]>wrote: > On 2013-09-18, at 05:54, Steve Thomas <sthomas1-gQhbkF4bah9Wk0Htik3J/[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:36 PM, karl ramberg <[email protected]>wrote: > >> This is IMO a bug. It says tellAllSuccessors but tells only the first >> node in the successor graph. >> > > Agreed, though the bug is only in the naming, the behavior is correct. > Mathematically speaking we mean the direct successors, but for brevity this > got shortened to just successors. > > Note that the help bubble for "tell all outgoing connections" is very > carefully worded: > > "Send a message to all the connectors whose source end is connected to me" > > whereas the help for "tell all successors" is just > > "Send a message to all graph successors" > > which is both factually wrong (it's only direct successors) and should > include a mention of connectors, perhaps > > "Send a message to all objects at the destination end of my outgoing > connections" > This sounds good. Karl > Well looking at this again, it seems using "tell *all*" is a bad wording > choice. > All of the "tell" tiles are "tell all" tiles. Perhaps it would be better > to have two versions "tell" tiles (for connectors and successors) which > tell the 1st level and "tell all" which go all the way down/up the chain. > > > All of the current behavior in Etoys is centered on a single object: *my* > siblings, *my* children, *my* connections. This comes from > the object-centric view of Etoys. So "all" means "all the objects I know" > not "all objects there are" which would be a global view, not > object-centric. I'm not convinced that we should give up that very > fundamental property of Etoys for a little convenience in a very limited > scenario. > > And also get rid of the extraneous "all" in the other tell commands. > > 1. "tell all siblings" ==> "tell siblings" > 2. "tell all embedded objects" ==> "tell embedded objects" > 3. "tell all incoming connections" ==> "tell incoming connections" > and "tell all incoming connections" > > Of course the problem with #3 and its like is that it could break older > projects which would not want to do. You might be able to determine which > version it was saved in and deal with that I don't know. > > > I like the "all" in the wording because it alerts the user that something > is happening to multiple objects at once. It is not strictly necessary > because with careful reading the plural "s" will reveal as much. I still > think a single letter is not quite enough to make clear that this is, in > fact, a very unusual thing, compared to the normal explicit object > relationships. > > - Bert - > > > > _______________________________________________ > squeakland mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland > > _______________________________________________ squeakland mailing list [email protected] http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland