But the problem that we face is that we have dependency that could be already factored out. I will start to remove etoy and we will see Stef On Sep 25, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Marcus Denker wrote:
On 25.09.2008, at 15:40, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
Hi!
I just created a package MorphicBalloon that contains the 3 classes defined in Morphic-Balloon. Here is the comment: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This package contains the 3 classes that define Balloon (BalloonCanvas, BalloonRectangleMorph, MatrixTranformMorph). These three classes, are only referenced by classes defined in the class category Morphic-Support. I am not sure whether this is a good change, but it is a first step to remove class category -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This is an example that should raise the question about where we want to go. I feel that having class category as sub-monticellopackage is a bad thing. We should get rid of class category.
I don't know if that is a good idea... Morphic is such a blob of unmaintainability, we should not add more confusion by packaging it into many tiny packages.
I would first clean up.
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- denker@iam.unibe.ch http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~denker
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project