Hi levente Good idea. Now I do not have cycle to check if this is ok for pharo-dev but we should check that. By construction and contrary to some people may think we are not against Squeak: You do not build a cool vision by opposition and it is not fun in the mid term. This is just that we want to avoid to have constraints and endless negotiation and ranting. Now of course if there is a fit where we can work together in positive energy, this is more than welcome, so thanks for the proposal. Ideally I would like to avoid to have all pharo packages in the pharo repository and I would love to manage a pharo system with a nice metacello description but we should do it first to make it happen. and in such a setup shared/components with their own lifecycle makes a lot of sense.
Stef PS: my goal is to have fun and learn a lot and create an eco system with people making a living out of smalltalk like software >> New issue 3447 by marcus.denker: Do we need to menu entry "Shout Workspace"? >> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3447 >> >> The normal workspace seems to have syntax hihjligting alreaday >> >> > > Why don't you give ShoutCore > (http://source.squeak.org/trunk/ShoutCore-ul.27.mcz ) a try? It works well in > Squeak. There's a menu item to enable/disable Shout in the workspace, besides > the global preference (not Preference) which applies to all workspaces. It > also has the features of ShoutMonticello. It could be developed as a shared > package between Pharo and Squeak, like VMMaker or OCompletion. What do you > think? > > > Levente >
