I used to think like you (same names think alike ;) ) But Doru and Andrei convinced me that this way is better:
1) you actually have a save of everything you do in your Playground in play-cache subdirectory. You can even change the place your play-cache is, then you can share scripts between your images. You access them with the elipsis button (super cool, I never wrote an external file again after learning this). 2) you can name your playgrounds by double clicking the “Page” tab. Then they can be found with spotter easily. Some observations here: - would be cool if this named page appears also in the elipsis list (it doesn’t) - as I said to Doru, the fact that you can double click and change name is not obvious and I do not thing anyone has realised they can. Adding an edit icon or something that indicates the field is editable would be cool. please, before rejecting it and came back to older ways, give this a try… I thought as you (Doru can testify how strong I was on it) and now I’m convinced this is a lot better and GTools team has a point here :) cheers, Esteban > On 30 Apr 2015, at 21:24, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaring...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2015-04-30 16:14 GMT-03:00 Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@web.de>: >> 2015-04-30 20:36 GMT+02:00 Esteban A. Maringolo <emaring...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> Since the workspace is hidden (*)... what's the recommended procedure >>> to open a smalltalk script file (.st or .ws) without having to open >>> the FileBrowser?(**) > >> you can use inspector to open the directory. >> 'directory_with_your_st_file' asFileReference inspect. >> >> in the inspector you can navigate through the directory >> or select a file and for example for a .st file the menu offers a >> "do it and open" entry, this will execute the selected code and open >> an inspector tab on the result. > > So basically there is no way to "File -> Open" from the Playground. :) > (nor a a way "File -> Save" its contents either [1]) > > I guess I'll keep opening a Workspace and continue the old way from there. > > > Regards! > > Esteban A. Maringolo > > [1]: IMO this is taking the "no-files based" concept to the extreme. A > step back if I could add. >
