BlackBox Framework Center

In this form as Josef describing it exists. I am using it for a long time and it is good.

Two commands for menu:

this feature is not suitable for framework

this feature is not suitable for framework

luowy wrote:TextControllers {AutoIndent} Patch...

Thanks.

I had not meant this seriously, but as an example of the kind of automation I don't want too much of. There is always Visual Studio for people who like the other approach.

Actually I had no idea that the Framework already supports control of AutoIndent, which is why your patch is so simple.

But it raises some issues:

- Does it make sense to make AutoIndent a user option, but not AutoScroll (whatever that is)?
- Your proposal is not complete; there would also need to be some covering documentation written.
- If we respond to every suggested "I personally would like this little thing" how do we keep things as simple as possible, or ever get 1.7 released?


As a group I don't think we are very good at deciding if we want something before considering the details of how to implement it. I am not asking for more votes, but if more people said, early on, "I like this" or "I don't like this" I think some of our discussions would come to a consensus rather quicker.

Robert wrote:

luowy wrote:TextControllers {AutoIndent} Patch...

Thanks.

I had not meant this seriously, but as an example of the kind of automation I don't want too much of. There is always Visual Studio for people who like the other approach.

Actually I had no idea that the Framework already supports control of AutoIndent, which is why your patch is so simple.

But it raises some issues:

- Does it make sense to make AutoIndent a user option, but not AutoScroll (whatever that is)?
- Your proposal is not complete; there would also need to be some covering documentation written.
- If we respond to every suggested "I personally would like this little thing" how do we keep things as simple as possible, or ever get 1.7 released?


As a group I don't think we are very good at deciding if we want something before considering the details of how to implement it. I am not asking for more votes, but if more people said, early on, "I like this" or "I don't like this" I think some of our discussions would come to a consensus rather quicker.

thanks you remind me.this feature is not suitable for the framework,so I will remove it.
let's stop it and work for other issue.
Ivan, please help me clean something about it.
luowy

LouWe, we can simply move it to Rejected subforum. That is normal case of Feature life-cycle:
1 somebody give an idea;
2 the demo was prepared;
3 during the discussion the author decide to not suggest it at the current moment;
4 topic is moving to the Rejected subforum to keep the discussion in our archive.

in addition, please clear the Target field in the Issue.
It should not contain "1.7" if it is rejected.

This is for avoiding any confusion when we later select
the issues related to 1.7.

Josef Templ wrote:in addition, please clear the Target field in the Issue.
It should not contain "1.7" if it is rejected.

This is for avoiding any confusion when we later select
the issues related to 1.7.

It was not set. Do not worry, Josef.

A note for whenever this feature request is reactivated: There has been a recent discussion of this issue on the ETH Oberon mailing list. Several existing solutions / alternative approaches have been proposed in the responses:

"[Oberon] Easier typing of capital letter keywords in Oberon"

http://lists.inf.ethz.ch/pipermail/oberon/2016/008771.html