Yes I have the impression that this is what we should do and do it in 1.3 and 1.4
Stef > Another problem with the fork not mentioned yet, is the assumption all > subscriber actions will have been carried out by the time next statement > occurs. > fork:'ing breaks that, and you can't make the assumption true without > conflicting with the reason to fork: in the first place. > Another argument in favor of only forking on unhandled exceptions I guess :) > > @#after: gripe in previous post: meh, ansi... > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Problem-with-announcements-in-Seaside-when-using-Pharo-1-3-tp3673669p3675040.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
