On 4/28/2010 11:32 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Good but what is your point?
Compatibility and simplicity.
That Setting is a cool framework. We knew it already :)
That's where you're confused. You keep talking about "cool" and I keep talking about "simple". These two are not the same yet you keep confusing them. If we want to have a certain amount of compatibility between Squeak and Pharo the defining property needs to be simplicity, not coolness. I don't care about the Settings framework, after having looked at it I find it difficult to understand and to follow. Too much "coolness" if you will and a lack of simplicity. But that's my opinion. If you think Settings is cool, use it.
I'm still interested in compatibility though, and as a consequence, I think we should agree on some basics. It's unlikely that anyone is going to implement the entire Pharo Settings framework in Squeak, so instead I'm giving you a trivial implementation of Squeak's preference annotation, along the way making a point about simplicity.
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.
I'm not trying to "tell" you anything. I'm presenting to you the option to be compatible with Squeak regarding simple preferences by giving you an implementation for Pharo. It seems to me that this is the best way to ensure a level of compatibility. It's your choice to take it or leave it.
Cheers, - Andreas _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
