>>
>> except that it changes the perception of blocks arguments and usage.
>
> I do not understand.
you see the not this argument because the first should be xzk
>>>>
> Subclass of what? Perhaps we should just set a case study and I try to show
> something. But first, I would need to understand what the concern is. Could
> you help me with it?
what is not clear to me is:
when I code oo I get messages and each method is a potential hook for
extension
when I code component (because GL is that a component model)
the ports are the extension points.
How such extension points works in presence of subclassing.
Then how the methods (because GL is coding in OO) which are the de facto hooks
interact with the ports one.
>>> Please understand that this debate started because you said it's sad that
>>> Alex would choose to work on top of Glamour for the Metacello browser. I
>>> simply would like to understand why you think it's so. To me, there does
>>> not seem to be a strong argument.
>>
>> Because if alex can build a model and a little UI for basic image and wrap
>> it with a better UI for glamouroust then
>> we all win. Now if there is no UI for basic then the people like me that are
>> always coding in alpha and working a lot
>> with metacello will get zero benefit.
>>
>> I think that the plan is the following:
>> - make the best IDE you can and that the people use it like hell
>> - make sure that you force pharo to always load it
>> - for the moment we are focusing on cleaning below. Now the challenge
>> is that we need tools too.
>
> Sounds ok :). It's much better than the "sad" remark :).
You know that I always say that. I even ask veronica to participate to the
glamour chapter because I want more. But this is on another level.
and I still have my doubts about glamour :)
I think that building models and code that does not rely on glamour is the best
way to make sure that it can work in both world.
> But, I thought the whole idea of one Pharo image was to get some decent tools
> in there for the benefit of the infrastructural work as well. Am I wrong?
Yes
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "What is more important: To be happy, or to make happy?"
>
>
