On May 3, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Sean Corfield wrote: > It's a very cool way to visualize the Clojure world and to explore > what's available. One thing I found - which would definitely stop me > paying for it as-is - I get lost when I drill down: there's no way to > navigate 'back' to what I was looking at and no sense of history (like > a crumb trail). Messing around with the demo I just realized I can use > the browser back button / hot key but that feels clunky - being able > to navigate more easily with keyboard shortcuts within the atlas > itself would make it a lot nicer to use. Perhaps left arrow / right > arrow to go back / forward thru the direct history and up arrow / down > arrow to jump up and down the hierarchy?
That's interesting; I very intentionally built in "proper" support for browser back/forward actions (as you discovered), thinking that that would be a good local maxima in terms of history navigation. FWIW, click-and-hold on the back or forward buttons in your browser will give you the "breadcrumbs" you're looking for. I'm not entirely convinced that left/right shortcuts would make sense — that would simply map to back/forward in the browser, which already have keyboard shortcuts. I'll think about it for a bit. I'd like to plumb at this up/down notion a bit. Perhaps it's not clear, but the ontology is not a hierarchy – there absolutely are cycles in its graph. For example: http://www.clojureatlas.com/org.clojure:clojure:1.2.0?guest=Y#clojure.core/isa? Which way is "up" (or "down") from isa? here? > It doesn't appear to include any of the contrib libraries (I know > that's a mammoth task for 1.2.0). Do you plan to include the new > contrib libraries in 1.3.0 since they seem more "integrated" now? I hope that Clojure Atlas will include contrib libraries in the future, though I can't imagine I'll be building the ontologies for them. As you say, 1.2.0 contrib is large, but "new contrib" is likely to get much, much larger (presumably larger than the standard library) since contributing to it is far easier than classic contrb. I'm thinking about various ways to allow for community-constructed ontologies for various libraries, including contrib of all versions. - Chas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
