Re: Dictionary possibilities [Re: Interesting... AppleScript X ??]
Re: Dictionary possibilities [Re: Interesting... AppleScript X ??]
- Subject: Re: Dictionary possibilities [Re: Interesting... AppleScript X ??]
- From: Michael Kelly <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:19:57 -0700
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 12:02:12PM +0100, has wrote:
[snip]
>
Further possibilites:
[snip]
>
2. The dictionary viewer/source editor distinction might be lessened, or
>
even removed altogether, through integration. Once your dictionary
>
effectively becomes a supercharged DTD/schema, your editing tools can also
>
exploit the information encoded within. One possibility is that you can do
>
away with dumb text-based source code and its associated
>
parse->complain|parse->compile cycle, and have an intelligent object editor
>
able to pipe the appropriate item to you [object reference/control
>
block/variable/literal/etc] almost before you type it. Sort of the
>
difference between a text editor and a word processor; and would relegate
>
your pleasantly pretty-printing but otherwise completely dumb AS editor to
>
dinosaur status overnight.
Wouldn't this then limit users to editing AS source with Apple's provided
editor? Isn't using plain-text source an _advantage_, as it can easily be edited
with the user's choice of text editors (BBEdit, vim, whatever), being opened in
the script editor only for compilation? Please correct me if I'm not
understanding something, but it seems like making AS even more proprietary than
it already is would be a Bad Thing...
>
(As a mental exercise, here's how this might work for an AS user. The user
>
might begin a line by typing "make". The editor would then pop up a list at
>
side of the screen, showing the names of all possible objects that can be
>
made in the current context. The user could click on any of those items to
>
insert it/find out more about it. Or the could just keep typing, and the
>
system would narrow that list down as the user types via a sort of dynamic
>
search/autocomplete, and warning them immediately if they go wrong. The
>
system would dynamically provide the user with as much support as they
>
could wish for without any need for additional interaction [e.g. the
>
frustrating "constantly jumping between keyboard and mouse" that WPs can
>
make an unfortunate habit of], while keeping both your Cal syntax and your
>
traditional "source code-centric" developmental approach.)
Very good idea, but couldn't this also be done with plaintext source? My point
is that the user should be allowed complete choice as to what editor they want
to use, which would require plaintext source.
[snip]
>
has
--
Michael
_______________________________________________
applescript-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.