Ok, let's distinguish them. Scripts are scripts (maybe <script> is better name than <example>?)

I thought that we don't need two options because in practice <example> only opens morph or inspector. And for morphs we already have morph tab in inspector. So morph examples could be easily converted to <examplar> without any loss.

@Denis
there was a long debate a while ago and I do not want to rediscuss it.
Personnally I have no preconceived points on naming. I want just a way to get instance and that people are happy
and that the solution stay ridiculously simple.

some <example> methods don't just show a morph that you want to inspect, but a Morph that you want to interact with. And not all Morphs render well in the inspectors Morph tab.

<script> - execute some code, don't care about the return value

<example> - create an (UI/Morph)-example you can interact with

<exemplar> - create an example instance.

I like all three of them and can see a value for every single one.

@Nicolai
Me too. So we are in sync :)
I wonder where we can document that.
I would have changed <example> into <popupExample>/<interactiveExample>

And it is not a dogma for me. Just to make sure that we move on.
Because I got student changing my "<examplar>" not tagged method to add an inspect call, not fun
when running my tests :) but it was clear that they wanted to have an inspector to tweak the object.

��

In my proposal we can get the best of both worlds.
�� - instance to use in tests
�� - instance to learn and tweak with GTInspector
�� - examples that we can see opening.