On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Jan Vrany <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03/06/13 12:18, Marcus Denker wrote: >> >> On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Jan Vrany <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I thought so. Attached hack removes it. >>> >> >> Of course a complete rewrite of the class builder is ready for integration… >> >> https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-contribution/job/Slot/ >> >> So the question is if it makes sense to add this one? > > Hm...I'm not sure what you mean. I mean that we should not change ClassBuilder now if it is replaced next week. (man power is limited). > Let put it this way? Any chance > 2.0 will allow lowercase class names? The problem with changing 2.0 is that all change always has side-effect impacting others… often in very non-expected ways. So I am a bit skeptical to change 2.0, especially anything in the dark places like the class builder. If it is a change that is for the good of all users, is makes sense to invest time and effort. But changing the class builder in 2.0 just for an experiment of one person? I would tend to argue to not do it. The current development version is another story. There we can break things, have time to stabilize. Marcus
