4 ms·
"click a little [+] next to predict(p) and see it right there inline, with its argument replaced by p? Oh, that’s how that works, cool, [-]." While I like this
by twymer 16y ago
"click a little [+] next to predict(p) and see it right there inline, with its argument replaced by p? Oh, that’s how that works, cool, [-]."
While I like this idea, I fail to see how having to use my mouse to navigate to and click the +/- would be more useful than using a keyboard shortcut to jump to definition..
- crc32 16y agoI also think I would find this "inlining" quite confusing in an OOP language, where the "predict" method was a member of an object instance, containing code that referenced this/self.
- AlisdairO 16y agoI would love this feature, because I regularly have to deal with OOP code that is constructed solely of functions that are about three lines long. This often swaps method-level complexity for systemic complexity, and it drives me nuts. Having to look back through ten different files to find out how a method does what it does as well as what it does (i.e beyond what you find in your average comment) is infuriating. Being able to inline method definitions would be really helpful, if it could be done in a way that didn't cause breakages around 'this', and so on.
- nailer 16y agoI'm sure his proposal didn't preclude keyboard shortcuts.
- wtallis 16y agoThe point is locality: if you jump to the definition, then the site of the call is no longer on screen. Being able to easily bring up the definition or at least the prototype and a one-line description without losing the current context would be quite useful.