Sorry :) We should not even try to reload etoy. Stef On Jun 3, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Gary Chambers wrote:
:-)
I think he meant #2.
I hope so... but then, not quite a reload, but a patch package could be done for the stuff not included in the EToys package. At least then, technically, EToys would be modular. Though it would be likely to hamper further streamlining.
Regards, Gary.
-----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr]On Behalf Of Damien Cassou Sent: 03 June 2008 4:51 PM To: An open mailing list to discuss any topics related to an open-sourceSmalltalk Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] EToys
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Gary Chambers <gazzaguru2@btinternet.com> wrote:
Damien,
I don't, particularly! Just wondering what the approach is here... quite happy to rip it out altogether (might get a bit zealous with it!). Early indications are that around 200 methods can be dropped from Morph alone!
Will wait for the inbox to settle first before applying my investigations to Pahro though.
I was asking the question to Stéphane who said:
"No reload of Etoy (as its current state) is important else it will reintroduce cruft"
Now that I read again the sentence, I think it can have 2 different meanings:
"No ! reload of etoy is important !"
or
"reload of etoy is not important"
Which one is correct? Knowing Stef, I would vote for 2 but I thought he meant 1.
-- Damien Cassou Peter von der Ahé: «I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good luck». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu)
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project