Good but what is your point? That Setting is a cool framework. We knew it already :)
That we could get other preferences than the ones we have? We also knew it but we decided to go for a no argument pragma. So I'm a little bit confused but what you try to tell us. On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Andreas Raab wrote: > On 4/28/2010 2:44 PM, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote: >> My point was rather the pragmas in Squeak are more closely coupled with >> the point it is actually defined, in that you defined the pragma itself >> in the accessor method for the variable, rather than having 1-N >> declarations in a single method, pointing to 1-N places where those >> settings values can actually be found. > > Right. The other advantage is that the simple "pragma" > (which we've already established isn't a pragma at all) I do not understand your sentence. That the name is bad and should be called annotation? Yes we know it since ages we followed VW naming. > is trivial to support. Here is an implementation for Pharo, taking all of six > methods (it would have been three methods if the Settings framework had been > structured a little different :-) > > Oh, and as a free goodie you get the ability to browse the implementors of > both, #systemsettings as well as #preference:category:description:type: if > you're curious where and how these annotations are used. > > Cheers, > - Andreas > <SqueakPrefs-ar.cs>_______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
