> On 01 Jul 2015, at 23:30, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>
>> > Because we could remove it.
>>
>> I think we never enabled it because we could not use good key combinations…
>> the idea
>> was to use ctrl-arrow keys for it…
>>
>> I still think that AST based navigation is a very good idea, removing it now
>> without having
>> ever used it for real is not good.
>>
>> Marcus, would that make sense to:
>>
>> * extract the core of the AST navigation as an API onto the RB AST (the
>> ability to go up, down, left and right in a RB AST, basically), i.e. trying
>> to preserve that way a bit some of the patterns solved by the AST
>> navigation...
>>
>> * and reduce whatever is linked with the GUI / text morph components ?
>>
>> Oh, looking at the code, the two aspects are implemented together, so it
>> will be painfull to refactor. Looking a bit more at the code... I'm
>> interested by the rationale for askForNodeSelectionFrom:
>>
>> Thierry
>>
>
> Marcus
>
> the problem is that the idea is cool but if nobody spent time making it
> useful for real then
> we will never know if it is working for real. I think that finding the right
> operations that makes sense
> can be probably difficult.
>
> Now we did the same analysis that thierry.
> The tree operations like parten children sibbling should not be on class side
> of nodes navigation
> but in the AST itself.
>
> We can keep used code in the image but I do not really understand why?
> So we have working tools such as the dependencies browser that could help us
> that
> were out of the image and things that nobody ever used in.
>
> For me I would unload the code and find a student or somebody interested to
> improve for real.
>
We could remove it for now… it makes only sens when we can use CTRL-arrow keys
to navigate,
but there are problems with that related to the keyboard events, I think.
Marcus
