Andreas Raab responded to my comments on the File Class Browser.
	> For example, when I look at a change set that includes changes to
	> an existing class, it tells me
	> 	----------------
	> 	There is no class definition for this class
	
	This merely means that the CS or source file you are browsing does not
	include a definition for this class.
	
Yes, I understood that.  My point is that it is BADLY WORDED.
It should, for example, say

		This file does not include a definition for this class.

	> A little inconsistent here, no?  Is this because it *can* display the
	> class definition that exists in the system (and is not 
	> changed) but there's a Preference I don't know about telling it
	> not to, or because it *can't*?
	
	It's simply because it is not a replacement for the browser.  It
	does *not* show you what's in the system.  But it does show you
	*exactly* what is in the file - no more and no less.  And if
	there is no definition or comment in that file then it will not
	trick you into thinking that there is.
	
That sounds very well, but in practice, it means that I have to have a
Browser on the class as well as a file class browser on the file.

Since the file class browser already has a little pane at the bottom
where it tells you whether a method is new or modified, it could
perfectly well show you the class definition or comment from the system
with a note "Definition/Comment from system, not file" and you would
have the information without any "tricking" or misleading about what is
in the file.