Hi everybody, In order to work with the new Overlord Verbs paradigm, (see http://jonoscript.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/overlord-verbs-a-proposal/ ) it is going to be neccessary to rename some of the built-in commands. Most of the ones which are currently hyphenated words will become a one-word verb with a one-word argument.
I'm working on the list of what all commands will be renamed to. I'm trying to keep it as much as possible so that if you type in what you're currently used to typing for the current name of the command, it will still autocomplete to the same thing.
This wiki page shows my proposals for renaming commands. It's still incomplete and a little messy, but I would love to have some feedback on it.
I'm a total programming newbie, but I think that might be useful and
easy.
This would respond to printing "test sample command", and any input
after that would be stored in a variable named something like
"input" (for obvious reasons ;).
I think Regular Expressions should be allowed too.
Something like this:
overlord=Go|Open|Load|Start
Then that command would respond to each of those, and Ubiquity would
have a database that keeps track of which overlord words that are in
use and which command that uses which.
On 30 Maj, 02:35, Jono <jdica...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> In order to work with the new Overlord Verbs paradigm, (seehttp://jonoscript.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/overlord-verbs-a-proposal/ > ) it is going to be neccessary to rename some of the built-in
> commands. Most of the ones which are currently hyphenated words will
> become a one-word verb with a one-word argument.
> I'm working on the list of what all commands will be renamed to. I'm
> trying to keep it as much as possible so that if you type in what
> you're currently used to typing for the current name of the command,
> it will still autocomplete to the same thing.
> This wiki page shows my proposals for renaming commands. It's still
> incomplete and a little messy, but I would love to have some feedback
> on it.
ssn:
"I love the idea of namespace, but I think concise is also beautiful.
I'd like to suggest something about "paraphrase list", which allow any
user (not only Command Developer) to choise whether to allow for
shorten representation.
Any user couldn't only choice whether "google" means "search google",
but also add new idiom, as if "translate to russian using google-
translate" be restated as "russify". Someone might think "close" is
not "close window" and should be "close tab". Of course, the "google"
substituted for "search google" is served with "search"-siblings e.g.
"search yahoo". This is mere paraphrase.
Every man after his fashion about paraphrase.
So, I just think every man should be able to choice the paraphrase."
My suggestion here is to create an addon for this that hooks into
Ubiquity's database.
Wanna remap "search" to Yahoo? Open the Ubiquity Remapper's list of
overlord verbs and set the default for "search" to Yahoo.
if (overrideProvider="true") {
defaultProvider=overrideVariableName
}
Want to set "google whatever" do the same as "search on google for
whatever"?
Then just set a "shortcut"/"nickname" that is named "google", and
passes on all input that comes after it to "search on google for".
Does this seems like a decent solution?
The addon should also be able to disable commands that you never use
(without deleting them).
It could be useful when two people working with different things want
the same command but want to use different names for it.
A scientist might use one word in a special way, and get confused/
ennoyed when Ubiquity always suggest a completely different command
for that word.
Then he could set a nickname for that command that makes more sense
for him, and "disable" the "original name" for it.
On 4 Juni, 14:15, Natanael L <natanae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a total programming newbie, but I think that might be useful and
> easy.
> This would respond to printing "test sample command", and any input
> after that would be stored in a variable named something like
> "input" (for obvious reasons ;).
> I think Regular Expressions should be allowed too.
> Something like this:
> overlord=Go|Open|Load|Start
> Then that command would respond to each of those, and Ubiquity would
> have a database that keeps track of which overlord words that are in
> use and which command that uses which.
> Something like this:
> overlord=Go|Open|Load|Start
> Then that command would respond to each of those, and Ubiquity would
> have a database that keeps track of which overlord words that are in
> use and which command that uses which.
Natanael, I like the idea of registering subverbs (to coin a new (and
confusing) phrase) against a set of overlord verbs which semantically
go together. I envision this as having different "buckets" to register
against... one for search engines, one for "things you can add things
to", one for "things you switch on and off" etc.
For example, perhaps we could register a "light switch" against
"things you switch on and off". You do this once and then you can use
"turn off light switch" and "turn on light switch".
This would help with internationalization down the line, as well, in
case we needed to have different overlord verbs with different
argument structures for different different languages, but using the
same "buckets".
(There must be a better word for this than "buckets"...)
> On 30 Maj, 02:35, Jono <jdica...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>> In order to work with the new Overlord Verbs paradigm, (seehttp://jonoscript.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/overlord-verbs-a-proposal/ >> ) it is going to be neccessary to rename some of the built-in
>> commands. Most of the ones which are currently hyphenated words will
>> become a one-word verb with a one-word argument.
>> I'm working on the list of what all commands will be renamed to. I'm
>> trying to keep it as much as possible so that if you type in what
>> you're currently used to typing for the current name of the command,
>> it will still autocomplete to the same thing.
>> This wiki page shows my proposals for renaming commands. It's still
>> incomplete and a little messy, but I would love to have some feedback
>> on it.
> > Something like this: > > overlord=Go|Open|Load|Start
> > Then that command would respond to each of those, and Ubiquity would > > have a database that keeps track of which overlord words that are in > > use and which command that uses which.
> Natanael, I like the idea of registering subverbs (to coin a new (and > confusing) phrase) against a set of overlord verbs which semantically > go together. I envision this as having different "buckets" to register > against... one for search engines, one for "things you can add things > to", one for "things you switch on and off" etc.
> For example, perhaps we could register a "light switch" against > "things you switch on and off". You do this once and then you can use > "turn off light switch" and "turn on light switch".
> This would help with internationalization down the line, as well, in > case we needed to have different overlord verbs with different > argument structures for different different languages, but using the > same "buckets".
> (There must be a better word for this than "buckets"...)
> Natanael, I like the idea of registering subverbs (to coin a new (and
> confusing) phrase) against a set of overlord verbs which semantically
> go together. I envision this as having different "buckets" to register
> against... one for search engines, one for "things you can add things
> to", one for "things you switch on and off" etc.
> For example, perhaps we could register a "light switch" against
> "things you switch on and off". You do this once and then you can use
> "turn off light switch" and "turn on light switch".
> This would help with internationalization down the line, as well, in
> case we needed to have different overlord verbs with different
> argument structures for different different languages, but using the
> same "buckets".
> (There must be a better word for this than "buckets"...)
> mitcho
> Categories?
Bindings? Hooks?
But more importantly, how does this system sound to others?
>> Natanael, I like the idea of registering subverbs (to coin a new (and
>> confusing) phrase) against a set of overlord verbs which semantically
>> go together. I envision this as having different "buckets" to register
>> against... one for search engines, one for "things you can add things
>> to", one for "things you switch on and off" etc.
>> For example, perhaps we could register a "light switch" against
>> "things you switch on and off". You do this once and then you can use
>> "turn off light switch" and "turn on light switch".
>> This would help with internationalization down the line, as well, in
>> case we needed to have different overlord verbs with different
>> argument structures for different different languages, but using the
>> same "buckets".
>> (There must be a better word for this than "buckets"...)
>> mitcho
>> Categories?
> Bindings? Hooks?
> But more importantly, how does this system sound to others?
