On May 3, 2011, at 10:21 PM, Sean Corfield wrote: >> FWIW, click-and-hold on the back or forward buttons in your browser will >> give you the "breadcrumbs" you're looking for. > > Hmm... that means taking the mouse out of the atlas and interacting > with the chrome of its surroundings...
Any breadcrumb navigation would require mousing around a bit -- whether that's up to the browser's buttons or up to a history in the toolbar. Note that I'm all for having better navigation options within Clojure Atlas. I just want to make sure that those options are obviously better than what all the browsers provide by default. >> 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 was more relative to the browser history. I start at Clojure, I go > off exploring, I find myself on some node with no obvious direct edge > to something I was looking at before. If I could hit 'up' and go back > in the history to the last thing connected to what I'm focused on... > > Maybe I just need to spend more time with it and just get used to the > way it works now... I think 'up' and 'back' here are synonymous. Perhaps you're hoping for an 'up' that was equivalent to two 'back' actions…? The way I think of it, there is a graph (defined by the ontology) that includes all concepts, vars, and classes in Clojure and its library. It's highly-connected, with cycles all over the place. Sanely visualizing it requires that we restrict our visible scope over that graph, as if it were wrapped onto a sphere that we were rotating each time we focus on a different node. Perhaps what might be useful is a quick way to show the graph of nodes you've visited in the current session -- breadcrumbs of a sort, but shown in the graph itself so you can easily peek back at docs and (once I implement it) inspect the connecting edges? >> 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. > > Really? I thought "new contrib" was more tightly controlled and > subject to more Clojure/core approval. Mind you, we had ~60 old > contrib libraries and we already have close to 30 new contrib > libraries so you may well be right... Controlled, yes, but for quality, not size. Contributing to classic contrib was much more difficult than it is to contribute to "new contrib", so I have to believe that the latter will be far larger in relatively short order, while being of far higher quality at the same time. - 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
