Suggestion for correcting the IDE's script editor

[Ken Ray]

On 7/1/05 4:20 AM, "Bob Warren" <warren at howsoft.com> wrote:

> Can we go back to where it all started?

You post was well said, Bob. I've been using xTalk for decades (ouch!) as
well as VB up through VB 6, and I know exactly what you mean (including the
.NET disenfranchisement).

> So here is the synthesis of my suggestion for correcting the IDE's script
> editor. It presumes that programming and design norms are to be taken into
> account, and that likely pitfalls of newcomers are to be avoided as much as
> possible.
> 
> 1. Existing bugs should be removed. The very fact that a newcomer cannot
> easily see the difference between a feature and a bug shows that there is
> something wrong somewhere. Bugs confuse everybody and everything.

Agreed.

> 2. Leave the existing auto-formatting facilities entirely alone.

Yup.

> BUT
> 3. When the auto-formatting is turned off, it means what it says. This means
> that changes to existing text can be made in the manner of a normal text
> editor. TAB creates a single indentation in a single line.

Right - I think it is a bug that turning off auto-formatting still gives you
some level of auto-formatting. :-)

> In addition, perhaps the switch for turning auto-formatting on and off could
> be put in a more convenient place.

Perhaps accessible somewhere through the script editor? Perhaps a button to
take you to the prefs dialog where you make those changes?

> Also, descriptions of auto-formatting and
> the (non-standard) use of the TAB key could be more prominently displayed in
> the Help.

Agreed. 

> Finally, I would like to apologise for the rather confused nature of my
> explanation. On top of my status as a refugee, I am extremely upset at the
> conflict my suggestion seems to have stimulated.

IMHO, sometimes people just have a bad day and want to vent, or are very
protective of certain features, or are resistant to change. My feelings are
that if someone disagrees with someone else, it is fine to make the
disagreement public, but in a respectful and non-aggressive way.

> Perhaps one reason for this
> is that to have new ideas, one must necessarily be provocative, and this is
> easily misinterpreted by those who are motivated to do so. I am seeking to
> deflate the situation by returning to the scene of the crime and re-tracing
> my steps. But only you are able to tell me whether I have succeeded or
> failed.

IMHO you have succeeded in spades.

Ken Ray
Sons of Thunder Software
Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/
Email: kray at sonsothunder.com