That's not name completion. Right? That's all we're jealous of :-)
On May 4, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote: > He wanted to have a key-binding/structured editing where you would > introduce a new form where the editor knew what the pieces would be. > So if you did Ctrl-Define (whatever) it would insert > > (define _ _) > > You would then tab to one of the _s. > > We talked about also doing things like Ctrl-Map or Ctrl-ListProc and > tab through different list-ing options. We talked about having a key > binding for "Get an identifier in scope" (which it would then tab > through inside out) vs "Fresh expression" > > Jay > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> > wrote: >> >> How? >> >> >> On May 4, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote: >> >>> I think Guillaume ideas for editor templates and macros would be a >>> Racket analogue to this idea. Partially implemented in DivaScheme >>> >>> http://www.cs.brown.edu/research/plt/software/divascheme/ >>> >>> Jay >>> >>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Matthias Felleisen >>> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> The other day when Simon PJ lectured here in Olin's compiler class >>>> (thanks, volcano), he mentioned that he was jealous of one thing in OO >>>> PLs: auto completion. You write down "anObject." and you immediately get >>>> all possible methods that you can apply here and you continue to guess >>>> your way thru program construction. (My words as you can tell if you know >>>> Simon.) >>>> >>>> Of course this isn't about FP vs OOP. It's about two different points: >>>> >>>> 1. syntax: OOP guys write down the first argument first (this) and then >>>> the method call and that is the way syntax works. I see nothing wrong with >>>> writing down >>>> >>>> aList. >>>> >>>> getting 2 possible completions in BSL/2: >>>> >>>> -- length >>>> -- reverse >>>> >>>> choosing one, say length >>>> >>>> and having the editor insert it like that: >>>> >>>> (length aList) >>>> >>>> If I allow the editor to manipulate my writings, why not be a tad more >>>> radical than add a word at the current position. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. Types. You need some restriction on the space in which you search and >>>> you might as well use types. So perhaps in Typed Scheme we should be able >>>> to change the IDE so it behaves like the above. >>>> >>>> Ah, but we also have history against us. Who would have thought that >>>> (lambda (x) (make-posn 0 x)) is the first argument for mapping over a list >>>> of numbers? >>>> >>>> Is it really hopeless for us? -- Matthias >>>> >>>> >>>> _________________________________________________ >>>> For list-related administrative tasks: >>>> http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> >>> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University >>> http://teammccarthy.org/jay >>> >>> "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 >> >> > > > > -- > Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> > Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University > http://teammccarthy.org/jay > > "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
