It seems very reasonable to have such a crucial infrastructure to have some base support in the core image. But I have had experts tell me to *never* load a symbolic version. There is a gap to close...
________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Sean P. DeNigris [[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 12:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote > > Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions > over time? > I understand your frustration. We are like parents watching a child grow up... For one thing, the API has been evolving as we've learned. From loadLast/Latest, to bleedingEdge/development, now to symbolic versions (which were sorely needed). The other impediment was that Metacello couldn't be assumed to have preloaded any base classes. Thus, ConfigurationOfXxx classes rely on someone manually (or automatically via tools) adding convenience methods. Without these, the API is hidden away in the project class. Recently, there seemed to be some agreement between Squeak and Pharo to load some base Metacello classes. If Configs had a common subclass, I think the system browser would be much more helpful. Dale, what do you think about all this? HTH, Sean p.s. of course ultimately, success depends on people testing projects and updating the configs... -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/What-about-making-the-configuration-browser-more-visible-tp4590573p4594228.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
