yes johan you are right again :)
Stef >> OK, back to topic and to summarize: we now all fully understood that the >> original message >> including pools is still there, will not break code loading or other things >> and that the >> change is on the Nautilus level. > > Yes, thanks for understanding and summarizing well. > >> But still the simple question left to be anwered here: what will this change >> of reducing the >> class template in the default browser give us? What problem did it really >> solve? >> >> The answer given so far is that it may be problematic when teaching because >> you want to >> introduce to language features step by step. But you said yourself in your >> own post >> that >> >> <quote> >> It is BORING to have to say to kids: >> - do not care of classvar >> - do not care of pooldictionaries >> </quote> >> >> So my question: if you are bored of the "complexity" of BOTH (!) >> - why do we hide pools now >> - and leave class variables still left in the template? >> >> I really do not understand because with the change it now looks in >> Pharo3.0 Latest update: #30732 like this: >> >> Object subclass: #Foo >> instanceVariableNames: '' >> classVariableNames: '' >> category: 'Bar' >> >> So why do we keep class vars then? According to your mail we would have to >> remove them too. > > From my point of view this is a different design decision to take since it is > a different feature of the language. So it is not included in the change that > I proposed. And BTW I leave it to somebody else to make the call and propose > a change to Pharo that addresses this (or not, as may be the case). > >> Additionally this change violates the intention of a template (which one >> usually just has to fill out) >> and one now has to remember the original full keyword and have to type it in >> again - which is IMHO >> really awkward and stupid. >> >> So with all respect: I still can not see the introduction of the reduced >> template as a step forward >> or an improvement. > > For me, this reduces to the case of Traits. A low usage (arguably), so uses: > is not present in the template. We do the same for pooldictionaries. If you > are against this, and say that you should just fill in the template, then > logically you should be against how Traits are handled. Following that logic, > you are advocating for: > > Object subclass: #NameOfSubclass > uses: '' > instanceVariableNames: '' > classVariableNames: '' > poolDictionaries: '' > category: '' > > Am I correct? > > ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- > > Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry > PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile > >
