Fair enough. But let's face facts, there is an "IT" that is wrong. I submit that "IT" is an ever-changing "no do it THIS way now[*]" The people providing the code and instructions are very well intentioned, but overall, the whole thing is too complicated for anyone's good.
I believe you that Metacello is not to blame. If it has the tools to fix this, then we should settle on some convention whether it is ConfigOfXYZ loadStable ConfigOfXYZ loadDev or whatever else the experts want. The point is that the consumer should have expectation that a single incantation will achieve the desired effect, every time (or as close as can be expected) and in context (1.3, 1.4, etc.). Bill [*] try figuring out what "now " means; it adds to the confusion over what to do. ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Frank Shearar [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 12:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] gamedev.net post asking about Smalltalk On 18 April 2012 17:38, Sean P. DeNigris <[email protected]> wrote: > > Frank Shearar-3 wrote >> >> "Stable version of foo relative to bar" means a having a >> ConfigurationOfFooForPharo13, ConfigurationOfFooForPharo14, >> ConfigurationOfFooForSqueak44, and so on. >> > > Now that we have symbolic platforms in Metacello, one configuration > specifies what to load for Pharo 1.3 vs. 1.4 vs. Squeak 4.4. Why would you > make separate configs? The great thing about Metacello is that I can drop > the config on any supported image and have it do the right thing... Sure. You can have N dead simple configurations or one complex configuration with N platforms. My point still stands: it's not Metacello's fault. frank > Sean > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/gamedev-net-post-asking-about-Smalltalk-tp4559039p4568264.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
