Nice claims (which I personally can't confirm; my success rate of
loading stuff from Universes has not been significantly higher than
loading from SM), but what does that have to do with whether SM should
be part of the image or not?
Cheers,
- Andreas
Lex Spoon wrote:
Andreas Raab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
I answer this a few days ago , now I repeat SqueakMap soon go out of image.
If some is not on Universes, you have very few chances is working on 3.10
Why is that? I don't think it's a particularly smart idea to remove SM
from the image - there is a lot of useful code on SM and it would be a
shame if people didn't have access to it (in particular considering
that universes are only accessible via Squeak - e.g., you can't ask
Google to find a package in Universes but Google will turn up packages
available on SM).
You are talking about two different things. If you want to read about
a package without worrying about running the code, then yes, go to
Google, and be sure to check out the SqueakMap page.
If, however, you want to *use* a package, you will need to load it.
For that, you should go to the package universe browser. For Squeak
3.7, only 2/5 of the packages on SqueakMap actually load. For Squeak
3.9, it is 1/5. In package universes, the answer is 100% for both of
them, and it will be 100% for 3.10 as well.
-Lex
_______________________________________________
V3dot10 mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/v3dot10
_______________________________________________
V3dot10 mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/v3dot10
