Hi, As you might know, a while ago we created GTExamples, a framework that supports both example-based live documentation and testing: http://gtoolkit.org/doc/Examples/examples.html GTExamples was part of the GTInspector for a while, but as it evolved, we pulled it out in a separate project. This separate project is not in Pharo anymore but it is part of the full GToolkit configuration (Pharo only ships the core of GToolkit). The idea of taking GTExamples out was to allow the community to have a more elaborate discussion about the role of examples in our environment. I have invited you to join that conversation, but it did not take off. I understand that perhaps the topic does not look appealing at this moment. We will certainly continue to evolve GTExamples both on the semantics level of the dependency constructs and on the integration with tools. Our goal is to enable a new practice that I would like to call Example-Guilded Development (or Example-Driven Development), and position Pharo to be the only platform on which someone can do that. But, that is our goal, and does not have to be the same with other peopleâs goal. Right now, GTExamples relies on the <gtExample> pragma to denote a method that returns an object that exemplifies something. Executing this method as an example should have no side-effects (either because the method itself does not have a side-effect, or because the example method defines how the cleanup should happen using the mechanism provided by GTExamples). This meaning is different from the meaning of the <example> pragma used through Pharo. There are currently 55 places that use this pragma inside Pharo and most of them come from FastTable. As things will progress and more libraries might use GTExamples, the situation can become confusing. To make things less confusing in the future, I would like to define the meaning of the <example> to denote a method that returns an object without having side effects. Would you agree with this? If yes, I would suggest the name of the new pragma that would replace the existing one to include âscriptâ in the name. For example, <sampleScript>. What do you think? Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."