Lex, et. al,
I regularly use
Connectors 2.3-187
and
Diagram Browser 25-Jul-2004
work with 3.9 7061. I have not had any trouble with them.
I use them to draw database, class, state, and network diagrams for my day job. I am really greatful to have real tools that I can mold to my needs.
I still think that Squeak Rocks! tap
Connectors & Diagram Browser - nice - hot favourites for developer image?
pf
Thomas A Petersen píše v Po 13. 11. 2006 v 07:44 -0500:
Lex, et. al,
I regularly use
Connectors 2.3-187
and
Diagram Browser 25-Jul-2004
work with 3.9 7061. I have not had any trouble with them.
I use them to draw database, class, state, and network diagrams for my day job. I am really greatful to have real tools that I can mold to my needs.
I still think that Squeak Rocks! tap
Frank Caggiano frankcag@crystal-objects.com writes:
IRCe works in 3.9.
Thomas A Petersen tpeterse@csc.com writes:
I regularly use
Connectors 2.3-187
and
Diagram Browser 25-Jul-2004
Sure, guys, I have now added Connectors, Diagram Browser, and IRCe. I've also added Celeste, which is my main use of Squeak nowadays outside of giving presentations.
What else?
-Lex
What else?
-Lex
There should be an image that does NOT have MC or SqueakMap in it, but does have the Universe browser. There should be packages for MC and SqueakMap, of course.
For newbies, the package universe makes much more sense than SqueakMap, since packages know dependencies.
-Ralph
This image is on its way!
Check out: http://wiki.squeak.org/KernelLoadUniverses
This is intended to be the beginning of such an image beginning with a minimal KernelImage.
Keith
There should be an image that does NOT have MC or SqueakMap in it, but does have the Universe browser. There should be packages for MC and SqueakMap, of course.
For newbies, the package universe makes much more sense than SqueakMap, since packages know dependencies.
-Ralph
From: "Ralph Johnson" johnson@cs.uiuc.edu Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: Re: [ANN] stable package universe for 3.9 Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:13:33 -0600
What else?
-Lex
There should be an image that does NOT have MC or SqueakMap in it, but does have the Universe browser. There should be packages for MC and SqueakMap, of course.
For newbies, the package universe makes much more sense than SqueakMap, since packages know dependencies.
-Ralph
Forgive my ignorance, but does every new version of a given package have to be republished in it's universe? It sounded like that on the web page. And if I have a universe already is there something like "apt-get update" for it?
In any event, it would be nice for seaside, pier and a few others to be on there so those packages could get rid of their own scripts (to make maintenance easier).
_________________________________________________________________ Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from Microsoft Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
"J J" azreal1977@hotmail.com writes:
Forgive my ignorance, but does every new version of a given package have to be republished in it's universe? It sounded like that on the web page. And if I have a universe already is there something like "apt-get update" for it?
Yes. In fact, that is at the core of the system. If you do not publish Foo version X into a universe, then people using that praticular universe will not even know Foo version X exists.
Thus, package universes do take work to maintain. However, that work pays off, in that you end up with a set of packages that have been hand selected.
In any event, it would be nice for seaside, pier and a few others to be on there so those packages could get rid of their own scripts (to make maintenance easier).
Hmmm, well, I might have to look closely at them if the install is non-trivial. Each of those authors, you know, is welcome to do it themselves, too. ;)
-Lex
20 Nov 2006 18:41:32 +0100, Lex Spoon lex@cc.gatech.edu:
"J J" azreal1977@hotmail.com writes:
Forgive my ignorance, but does every new version of a given package have to be republished in it's universe? It sounded like that on the web page. And if I have a universe already is there something like "apt-get update" for it?
Yes. In fact, that is at the core of the system. If you do not publish Foo version X into a universe, then people using that praticular universe will not even know Foo version X exists.
Thus, package universes do take work to maintain. However, that work pays off, in that you end up with a set of packages that have been hand selected.
In any event, it would be nice for seaside, pier and a few others to be on there so those packages could get rid of their own scripts (to make maintenance easier).
Hmmm, well, I might have to look closely at them if the install is non-trivial. Each of those authors, you know, is welcome to do it themselves, too. ;)
Pier and Seaside can be just loaded from Monticello, as it should be. Nothing else is possible since they are developed using Monticello.
However: - They get updated regularly, sometimes several times a week. - The loading might include some gui interaction (asking for passwords and stuff) - They have a large list of depencies, that's what the scripts are for.
Philippe
From: "Philippe Marschall" philippe.marschall@gmail.com Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: [ANN] stable package universe for 3.9 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:50:35 +0100
Pier and Seaside can be just loaded from Monticello, as it should be. Nothing else is possible since they are developed using Monticello.
However:
- They get updated regularly, sometimes several times a week.
- The loading might include some gui interaction (asking for passwords
and stuff)
- They have a large list of depencies, that's what the scripts are for.
It is this last one that made me think these packages could benefit greatly from being part of the universe system. Then instead of having to keep your dependencies up to date with a script you could do it in the universe system and perhaps that system could help manage it a bit. It's not that I think the current method is broken, just that it could be easier.
_________________________________________________________________ Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now. http://ideas.live.com
"J J" azreal1977@hotmail.com writes:
Pier and Seaside can be just loaded from Monticello, as it should be. Nothing else is possible since they are developed using Monticello.
However:
- They get updated regularly, sometimes several times a week.
- The loading might include some gui interaction (asking for passwords
and stuff)
- They have a large list of depencies, that's what the scripts are for.
It is this last one that made me think these packages could benefit greatly from being part of the universe system. Then instead of having to keep your dependencies up to date with a script you could do it in the universe system and perhaps that system could help manage it a bit. It's not that I think the current method is broken, just that it could be easier.
Yes, if there are a lot of dependencies, then I would think setting up a package universe would really help you. You can either use the main public universe, or you could set up a server of your own. Note that universes combine nicely: you can very well pull packages from the union of a private universe and a public one.
Back on the original question, let me mention two things that make it easier to post new releases than you might think.
First, once you post a package the first time, you do not have to fill in all the fields again. There is a button "new package version" which lets you just change the parts that have changed. Usually, you can simply change the version number and the download URL.
Second, it is only a little bit of code to post, so you can automate it if you like. Here is the relevant code (I'll go post this on the wiki, too):
newPackage _ UPackage new. newPackage name: 'FFFPackage'. newPackage depends: #('dependency1' 'dependency2'). newPackage description: 'here''s an example package'. newPackage homepage: 'http://www.squeak.org' asUrl. newPackage url: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/whatever' asUrl. newPackage version: (UVersion readFromString: '1.0'). newPackage maintainer: 'Joe Blow joe@blow.net'.
client _ UUniverseClient forUniverse: UUniverse developmentUniverse. client sendMessage: (UMAddPackage username: 'USERNAME' password: 'PASSWORD' package: newPackage).
[true] whileTrue: [ client receivedMessagesDo: [ :m | m inspect. (m class == UMPackageAdded or: [ m class == UMError ]) ifTrue: [ ^self ] ]. (Delay forSeconds: 1) wait. ].
You can put this in a workspace, or in a class method somewhere, so that you can invoke it whenever you are ready to make a release.
Stepping back, I don't see how it can be much easier. I mean, even during heavy development, is there not a difference between a release and a Monticello commit?
-Lex
From: Lex Spoon lex@cc.gatech.edu Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: [ANN] stable package universe for 3.9 Date: 20 Nov 2006 18:41:32 +0100
"J J" azreal1977@hotmail.com writes:
Forgive my ignorance, but does every new version of a given package have to be republished in it's universe? It sounded like that on the web page.
Yes. In fact, that is at the core of the system. If you do not publish Foo version X into a universe, then people using that praticular universe will not even know Foo version X exists.
Ok, so what that basically means is, if you publish a package at the moment, you have to save it to Monticello, publish to squeak map and put it in a Universe, right? :)
It sounds to me like Universes could replace squeak map, right? If so, would it be possible to hook into the squeak map (and/or Monticello) publishing process so that squeak map publishes cause a publish to a universe (or vise versa since the universe publish may require more info)? That would make migrating to a universe based system easier. The easiest way to get people to use something is (a) make it transparently a part of what they did before or (b) make it do what they did before and easier for them.
_________________________________________________________________ Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get...
"J J" azreal1977@hotmail.com writes:
"J J" azreal1977@hotmail.com writes:
Forgive my ignorance, but does every new version of a given package have to be republished in it's universe? It sounded like that on the web page.
Yes. In fact, that is at the core of the system. If you do not publish Foo version X into a universe, then people using that praticular universe will not even know Foo version X exists.
Ok, so what that basically means is, if you publish a package at the moment, you have to save it to Monticello, publish to squeak map and put it in a Universe, right? :)
It sounds to me like Universes could replace squeak map, right?
Sort of. I think most developers would be happy to have a package universe to work within from which they pull most packages. I think package universes could replace that one bit of functionality: when a developer thinks, "I want to load Seaside", then their first stop could be to go to the universe browser instead of SqueakMap.
That is just one function, though. SqueakMap remains an important catalog and archive of all Squeak software that has ever been publically posted. Package universes is not that. By design it is not that, and I do not see how it ever could be.
If so, would it be possible to hook into the squeak map (and/or Monticello) publishing process so that squeak map publishes cause a publish to a universe (or vise versa since the universe publish may require more info)?
Things like this are certainly possible. For example, it would be great if SqueakSource had a button you could press to post a package-universes release.
My intuition has been that Monticello commits are more frequent than actual releases. That has always been the case for my code. But maybe other people work differently? If so, then indeed it would be nice to hook into the Monticello commit process, and/or to hook a Monticello stream directly into a universe.
That would make migrating to a universe based system easier. The easiest way to get people to use something is (a) make it transparently a part of what they did before or (b) make it do what they did before and easier for them.
I agree. Ideas? Unfortunately, my Squeak coding time is pretty limited these days, but then again Smalltalk is dense enough that many workable solutions just take a few lines of code....
-Lex
A package universe is better than Monticello or SqueakMap for beginners and for people who don't care whether they have the absolute latest version, but just want something that is going to work.
Squeak Map is better for people who want to explore, for people who want to find everything, even if it takes a little work to get it going.
Monticello is better for people who want to participate in the development of a package or who want the latest version. It takes more expertise to use Monticello than to use a package universe.
A package universe comes with some sort of understanding (I was going to say "guarentee", but changed my mind) that the packages all work together. This implies that someone is responsible for it. Squeak Map is a set of things that someone, at some time, thought was interesting, but many of them do not work together, and that is OK. It would not be OK if a package universe contained packages that did not work together. I think a package universe will work best if it is "owned" by someone or by a small group. A package universe is by design not complete, but it is consistent.
Squeak Map is complete. There is only one Squeak Map, and everything is in it. Or should be. Anybody can write to it, and anybody who has ever made a Squeak package should write to it to tell the world about what they have done. Consequently, Squeak Map is not consistent.
So, I think there is room for all three systems. They each do something different.
I think that newcomers should start out with a package universe and then graduate to Squeak Map and Monticello.
-Ralph Johnson
"Ralph Johnson" johnson@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
A package universe is [...]
Squeak Map is [...]
Monticello is [...]
Well and concisely put, professor. I cannot see a space to insert a single extra coin, much less two whole cents. This post would make a good documentation entry somewhere, for people new to all of the Squeak community tools. -Lex
From: Lex Spoon lex@cc.gatech.edu Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: [ANN] stable package universe for 3.9 Date: 21 Nov 2006 11:26:36 +0100
Things like this are certainly possible. For example, it would be great if SqueakSource had a button you could press to post a package-universes release.
I agree. Ideas? Unfortunately, my Squeak coding time is pretty limited these days, but then again Smalltalk is dense enough that many workable solutions just take a few lines of code....
If you publish something to squeak map do you have to go to the SqueakSource web page? If that is the case then I think your idea above about the SqueakSource web site could be a really convenient way to do this.
For each package, the site could show the universes that package is a part of. If you publish a new version and you have universes defined then it could ask you if you want to publish to those universes. This will probably take a bit of coding, but maybe it could get universes used more.
Who would we have to talk to about adding something like this to squeaksource?
_________________________________________________________________ Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from Microsoft Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
2006/11/21, J J azreal1977@hotmail.com:
From: Lex Spoon lex@cc.gatech.edu Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: [ANN] stable package universe for 3.9 Date: 21 Nov 2006 11:26:36 +0100
Things like this are certainly possible. For example, it would be great if SqueakSource had a button you could press to post a package-universes release.
I agree. Ideas? Unfortunately, my Squeak coding time is pretty limited these days, but then again Smalltalk is dense enough that many workable solutions just take a few lines of code....
If you publish something to squeak map do you have to go to the SqueakSource web page? If that is the case then I think your idea above about the SqueakSource web site could be a really convenient way to do this.
For each package, the site could show the universes that package is a part of. If you publish a new version and you have universes defined then it could ask you if you want to publish to those universes. This will probably take a bit of coding, but maybe it could get universes used more.
Who would we have to talk to about adding something like this to squeaksource?
SqueakSource supports publishing to SqueakMap. But HTTPSocket does not support POST via a proxy.
Philippe
On 11/20/06, J J azreal1977@hotmail.com wrote:
Ok, so what that basically means is, if you publish a package at the moment, you have to save it to Monticello, publish to squeak map and put it in a Universe, right? :)
If you are developing a package with someone else, it will probably be in Monticello. Your first users will be other developers, probably all experts, and you will just let them use your repository. Eventually you will advertise on Squeak Map. You probably do not have your own Universe, but perhaps someone with a bleeding edge Universe will include your package in his Universe. If your package is stable enough to be useful and gets a lot of users then it will get put in one of the more stable Universes. Unless you run the Universe, you won't post it there.
If I were running a Universe, I would only include packages that had test suites. When new versions of packages came out, or there were new packages that I wanted to include, I'd want a fairly automatic way to run all the test suites. One idea is to make a "test universe" that adds a few packages to my main universe. Ideally, I could override the packages with new versions, add the new packages, and run all the tests in the new universe. If I liked the results, I'd update the main universe with the new versions.
Lex, I have a question. I know that one Universe can include another. Can a Universe override packages, i.e. have a different version of a package?
-Ralph
Thank you for your explanations. Expanding on the idea Lex mentioned earlier about making squeaksource universe aware, it would be possible to have tests run automatically if someone tried to publish to a universe to decide if it goes in or not. A system like this might make building releases easier if there was just a "3.10 Standard Universe" or something.
From: "Ralph Johnson" johnson@cs.uiuc.edu Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: Re: [ANN] stable package universe for 3.9 Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 07:19:59 -0600
On 11/20/06, J J azreal1977@hotmail.com wrote:
Ok, so what that basically means is, if you publish a package at the moment, you have to save it to Monticello, publish to squeak map and put it in a Universe, right? :)
If you are developing a package with someone else, it will probably be in Monticello. Your first users will be other developers, probably all experts, and you will just let them use your repository. Eventually you will advertise on Squeak Map. You probably do not have your own Universe, but perhaps someone with a bleeding edge Universe will include your package in his Universe. If your package is stable enough to be useful and gets a lot of users then it will get put in one of the more stable Universes. Unless you run the Universe, you won't post it there.
If I were running a Universe, I would only include packages that had test suites. When new versions of packages came out, or there were new packages that I wanted to include, I'd want a fairly automatic way to run all the test suites. One idea is to make a "test universe" that adds a few packages to my main universe. Ideally, I could override the packages with new versions, add the new packages, and run all the tests in the new universe. If I liked the results, I'd update the main universe with the new versions.
Lex, I have a question. I know that one Universe can include another. Can a Universe override packages, i.e. have a different version of a package?
-Ralph
_________________________________________________________________ Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get...
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 05:02:43PM +0100, Lex Spoon wrote:
Sure, guys, I have now added Connectors, Diagram Browser, and IRCe. I've also added Celeste, which is my main use of Squeak nowadays outside of giving presentations.
What else?
-Lex
I use OSProcess and CommandShell. But I might be biased ;)
Dave
Lex Spoon puso en su mail :
What else?
-Lex
Please add Keymapping-3.8-cds.115.mcz FileMan-mu.44.mcz DebugReport-minami.11.mcz Announcements-lr.5.mcz Mondrian-lr.26.mcz
Edgar
__________________________________________________ Correo Yahoo! Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam �gratis! �Abr� tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
Today I added:
OSProcess CommandShell FileMan DebugReport
Generally I copied the requested versions from SqueakMap.
I verified that these load successfully, but otherwise I did not really test them. If anyone notices problems with the posted packages, please let me know! This universe is going to have low standards, but there's no reason not to at least fix the most obvious of problems.
I did not add Keymapping or Announcements, because I could not find the specified version on SqueakMap or Google. Can you give me more specific URL's ?
I add a version of Mondrian on SqueakSource, but I immediately removed it because it seems to depend on Announcements.
Incidentally, KeyBinder is already included in the universe. Does anyone know how KeyBinder and Keymapping interact? Can they really be loaded simultaneously?? Is one of these preferable to the other?
-Lex
Hi Lex,
I didn't test it but I am pretty sure that loading both KeyBinder and KeyMapping its not a good idea.
The reason is that both KeyBinder and KeyMapping modifies Squeak's key event handling so I wouldn't be surprised if both modifications conflicts.
The short-term solution is to not load both. I would suggest to use KeyMapping instead of KeyBinder because of the fact that it looks more complete feature-wise. And because when a I did KeyBinder I only meant it as a proof of concept, not as a real application.
For the long-term I strongly advice to add KeyBinder's or KeyMapping's patch to the official squeak kernel.
Regards, Hernán
On 25 Nov 2006 14:10:37 +0100, Lex Spoon lex@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
Today I added:
OSProcess CommandShell FileMan DebugReport
Generally I copied the requested versions from SqueakMap.
I verified that these load successfully, but otherwise I did not really test them. If anyone notices problems with the posted packages, please let me know! This universe is going to have low standards, but there's no reason not to at least fix the most obvious of problems.
I did not add Keymapping or Announcements, because I could not find the specified version on SqueakMap or Google. Can you give me more specific URL's ?
I add a version of Mondrian on SqueakSource, but I immediately removed it because it seems to depend on Announcements.
Incidentally, KeyBinder is already included in the universe. Does anyone know how KeyBinder and Keymapping interact? Can they really be loaded simultaneously?? Is one of these preferable to the other?
-Lex
"Hernan Tylim" htylim@gmail.com writes:
Hi Lex,
I didn't test it but I am pretty sure that loading both KeyBinder and KeyMapping its not a good idea.
The reason is that both KeyBinder and KeyMapping modifies Squeak's key event handling so I wouldn't be surprised if both modifications conflicts.
The short-term solution is to not load both. I would suggest to use KeyMapping instead of KeyBinder because of the fact that it looks more complete feature-wise. And because when a I did KeyBinder I only meant it as a proof of concept, not as a real application.
I removed KeyBinder and tried loading KeyMapping from SqueakMap, and it threw an error in the postscript.
At this point, I have removed both packages. If there's no other word from anyowe, I'll put KeyBinder back in, because one person did say they were using that one in 3.9.
Incidentally, if anyone does get KeyMapping working, could you repost it a nice self-contained Monticello package (or set of packages) instead of a single smart SAR? We should not need SAR's for package-universes installation, because you have a dependency mechanism available. Smart SAR's can easily be too smart for their own good.
-Lex
Lex Spoon puso en su mail :
Incidentally, if anyone does get KeyMapping working, could you repost it a nice self-contained Monticello package (or set of packages) instead of a single smart SAR? We should not need SAR's for package-universes installation, because you have a dependency mechanism available. Smart SAR's can easily be too smart for their own good.
I really don't understand the against SAR "fashion". If you have something what works why try to use something what not? You are one of my top Squeakers for learn , but this time disagree.
Edgar
__________________________________________________ Correo Yahoo! Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam �gratis! �Abr� tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
"Edgar J. De Cleene" edgardec2001@yahoo.com.ar writes:
Lex Spoon puso en su mail :
Incidentally, if anyone does get KeyMapping working, could you repost it a nice self-contained Monticello package (or set of packages) instead of a single smart SAR? We should not need SAR's for package-universes installation, because you have a dependency mechanism available. Smart SAR's can easily be too smart for their own good.
I really don't understand the against SAR "fashion". If you have something what works why try to use something what not? You are one of my top Squeakers for learn , but this time disagree.
If, yes, but only if.
First, SAR's add no new useful features once you have a working dependency system. Or am I mistaken? Second, in practice they are used to solve missing dependencies, and the way they do it is often fragile. Third, they lack the ability to uninstall.
Put "smarts" where they will work, and otherwise be dumb. SAR's were a simple and elegant solution before we had Monticello and Package Universes. Nowadays we have these new tools, and the smartness of SAR's is a risk more than a help.
Feel free to prove me wrong, of course. I am mainly speaking from my experience of looking at SAR's posted on SqueakMap.
-Lex
Lex Spoon puso en su mail :
I add a version of Mondrian on SqueakSource, but I immediately removed it because it seems to depend on Announcements.
Hey Lex, I was who ask to have this two.
You could found both in http://mc.lukas-renggli.ch/
You need load Announcements first. Announcements-lr.5.mcz Mondrian-lr.26.mcz Is what I load and have working, don't know if more recent versions exists.
Edgar
__________________________________________________ Correo Yahoo! Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam �gratis! �Abr� tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
"Edgar J. De Cleene" edgardec2001@yahoo.com.ar writes:
You could found both in http://mc.lukas-renggli.ch/
You need load Announcements first. Announcements-lr.5.mcz Mondrian-lr.26.mcz Is what I load and have working, don't know if more recent versions exists.
Thanks, they are in there, now. I have not played with them, but they load successfully. Let me know if they seem to act oddly! -Lex
Hi Lex,
yesterday I installed Mondrian-lr.33.mcz (together with Annoucements-lr.5.mcz) from http://mc.lukas-renggli.ch and it is working.
I haven't played with it very much, but unit tests passed and system complexity + class inheritance worked for all classes I put there.
There is even 34 version available, but Lukas suggest not to load it, because most of it is broken due to some yummy changes.
Jakub
Lex Spoon wrote:
"Edgar J. De Cleene" edgardec2001@yahoo.com.ar writes:
You could found both in http://mc.lukas-renggli.ch/
You need load Announcements first. Announcements-lr.5.mcz Mondrian-lr.26.mcz Is what I load and have working, don't know if more recent versions exists.
Thanks, they are in there, now. I have not played with them, but they load successfully. Let me know if they seem to act oddly! -Lex
Jakub Kozisek jakub.kozisek@gmail.com writes:
Hi Lex,
yesterday I installed Mondrian-lr.33.mcz (together with Annoucements-lr.5.mcz) from http://mc.lukas-renggli.ch and it is working.
I haven't played with it very much, but unit tests passed and system complexity + class inheritance worked for all classes I put there.
There is even 34 version available, but Lukas suggest not to load it, because most of it is broken due to some yummy changes.
Oops! Okay, then, I put in version 33 instead of 34...
-Lex
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
David T. Lewis -
Edgar J. De Cleene -
Hernan Tylim -
J J -
Jakub Kozisek -
Keith Hodges -
Lex Spoon -
Petr Fischer -
Philippe Marschall -
Ralph Johnson -
Thomas A Petersen