When conducting peer code reviews, fill out the template below in a comment on your peer’s pull request.

# Peer Code Review

## Correctness

The code satisfies the requirements outlined in the project description. Check the box for each requirement that is satisfied (as shown by the images and code changes in the Pull Request):
- [ ] Requirement 1: The "Go To Definition" menu item to the set of options that appear when a user does a <Control + Click> event (when a user holds down the Control button and clicks).
- [ ] Requirement 2: When a user selects the Go To Definition option while on a method name, the cursor should then go to the definition of that method.
- [ ] Requirement 3: If the **cursor is not on a method implementation**, then it should ring the Tkinter bell to indicate that we cannot go to the definition of that method (look at the code to determine this).
- [ ] Requirement 4: If the the method **does not appear** in the current Python file, then it should ring the Tkinter bell to indicate that we cannot go to the definition of that method.
- [ ] Requirement 5: There is a `.json` file of the author's Copilot chats related to this project. 


## Simple Design

The design of the solution should focus on simplicity, clarity, and maintainability. Students should evaluate whether the code adheres to these principles:
- [ ] Exemplary: The design is easy to understand, modular, and avoids unnecessary complexity. It follows established design principles such as separation of concerns and single responsibility. Functions and classes are appropriately sized, and the logic is straightforward and efficient.
- [ ] Satisfactory: The design is mostly clear and functional but may include minor complexities or redundancies that could be simplified. Some opportunities for better modularization or adherence to design principles exist.
- [ ] Needs Improvement: The design is difficult to follow or overly complex. There are clear violations of design principles, such as tightly coupled components or overly large functions/classes.
- [ ] Missing or None: The design lacks structure or is so poorly implemented that it cannot be reasonably understood or maintained.

### Explain your choice:

Under each bullet point, answer the question and explain your reasoning:
- Are functions/classes too large or trying to do too much?
- Are there unnecessary dependencies or overly complex logic?
- Is the code easy to follow for someone new to the project?


## Code Style

Code style focuses on readability, consistency, and adherence to coding standards. Students should evaluate whether the code meets these criteria (check one):
- [ ] Exemplary: The code strictly follows established coding conventions (e.g., naming conventions, indentation, spacing). It is well-documented with comments where necessary and variable/function names are descriptive. The formatting is clean and consistent throughout.
- [ ] Satisfactory: The code mostly adheres to coding standards but may have minor inconsistencies in formatting or naming conventions. Comments are present but could be more detailed or better placed.
- [ ] Needs Improvement: The code has significant style issues, such as inconsistent formatting, unclear naming conventions, or insufficient documentation. These issues negatively impact readability.
- [ ] Missing or None: The code does not follow any recognizable style guide. It is poorly formatted, lacks meaningful comments, and uses unclear or inconsistent names.

### Explain your choice:

Under each bullet point, answer the question and explain your reasoning:
- [ ] Are variable/function names descriptive and consistent?
- [ ] Is the code properly indented and formatted?
- [ ] Are comments used effectively to explain non-obvious logic?
- [ ] Does the code follow the project's style guide?

## Did you (the reviewer) add inline comments (both positive and negative) in your peer review? 

- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No