On Tue 22.Sep'09 at 14:56:18 +0200, Tamas TEVESZ wrote: > On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Carlos R. Mafra wrote: > > > On Tue 22.Sep'09 at 13:43:25 +0200, Tamas TEVESZ wrote: > > > and i still am standing by my opinion that basic functionality should > > > be built in. > > > > This a delicate point. What people consider "basic functionality" can > > be discussed ad infinitum, and in the end I see little chances of > > agreement. > > indeed. my point is, if there is a run dialog (whether it is the > current one, or some other, with more functionality), it should be > built in.
Ah ok! And just to emphasize, my point is that there should be a limit to what "basic functionality" is allowed to be. On the one hand, once you have some functionality it is a driving force to add more things on top of it, leading to bloat. On the other hand, if you have something which can be better, why can't it be better? The wisdom lies on where to draw the line. For example, one of the things I like about a shell is the "show all if ambiguous" functionality of tab completion. I fear someone might think this is a cool thing to have in the run dialog too, and make it open a small window showing all possible completions when they are ambiguous, and then somebody else will say "oh it will be cool if I can choose one of them using vi-like keyboard movements" on so on. It can be a hard thing to stop once you start moving, as Newton already knew quite some time ago. -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
