2016-08-18 22:45 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com>:

2016-08-18 19:50 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo@free.fr>:
Hi

Why not use <example> pragma in the way you propose for <examplar>? Why we need two?

 Apparently from the old discussion, people like <example> to prompt and open the example
when this is something visual. This is ok for me.

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.��
��

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.
��
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.