2016-08-18 22:45 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com>: > > 2016-08-18 19:50 GMT+02:00 stepharo <steph...@free.fr>: > >> Hi >> >> Why not use <example> pragma in the way you propose for <examplar>? Why >> we need two? >> >> >> Apparently from the old discussion, people like <example> to prompt and >> open the example >> when this is something visual. This is ok for me. >> > > Ok, let's distinguish them. Scripts are scripts (maybe <script> is better > name than <example>?) > > I thought that we don't need two options because in practice <example> > only opens morph or inspector. And for morphs we already have morph tab in > inspector. So morph examples could be easily converted to <examplar> > without any loss. > >
some <example> methods don't just show a morph that you want to inspect, but a Morph that you want to interact with. And not all Morphs render well in the inspectors Morph tab. <script> - execute some code, don't care about the return value <example> - create an (UI/Morph)-example you can interact with <exemplar> - create an example instance. I like all three of them and can see a value for every single one. > In my proposal we can get the best of both worlds. >> - instance to use in tests >> - instance to learn and tweak with GTInspector >> - examples that we can see opening. > > > >
