I'm definitely in favor of the alpha fanciness idea. The others seem reasonable as well, though. sam th <div class="gmail_quote">On Sep 9, 2011 8:09 PM, "Robby Findler" <<a href="mailto:robby@eecs.northwestern.edu">robby@eecs.northwestern.edu</a>> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <<a href="mailto:samth@ccs.neu.edu">samth@ccs.neu.edu</a>> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Robby Findler >> <<a href="mailto:robby@eecs.northwestern.edu">robby@eecs.northwestern.edu</a>> wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <<a href="mailto:samth@ccs.neu.edu">samth@ccs.neu.edu</a>> wrote: >>>> Speaking of things that would improve the experience of those who keep >>>> parens balanced, if the error message appearing didn't move the >>>> division between the definitions and interactions window, that would >>>> be really nice. >>> >>> That bounce must be really annoying, I can see that. >>> >>> I've been thinking about what would be a good fix, but am having >>> trouble, given the constraint that I want the error message to be >>> visible without having to mouse over something. >>> >>> How about this: I'll make it so the error message thing doesn't go >>> away automatically, but instead the text just gets erased. There'll be >>> a separate little close button (like there is for the search thingy) >>> that you have to close. Then the text can come and go without bouncing >>> and for programs that don't have errors (like if you're browsing a >>> bunch of files) you don't lose that extra line at the bottom. Sound >>> worth trying? >> >> I'd be fine with that. I'd also be fine with keep the bar there all >> the time. But it seems like the optimal solution would be for the bar >> to appear and disappear, but not change the divider location. Is that >> possible with `racket/gui'? That would make it more reasonable to >> show more of the error when it's more than 1 line, as well. > > Well, we can make the bar be a part of the interactions window (or the > bottommost definitions window if there is no interactions window) by > drawing on top of the text with some alpha fanciness, or we can have > it be a control in the window. If it is a control in the window, some > other window has to get smaller, or the whole window has to get bigger > (the latter is generally considered a bad idea I think). > > So, those are the options. > > Now that I write that, I'm thinking that maybe doing alpha fanciness > on the bottom-most definitions window might be worth trying...? > > Robby </div>