G.J.Tielemans at dinkel.utwente.nl wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Hinsley [mailto:jhinsley at telinco.co.uk]
> > Sent: maandag 8 oktober 2001 20:58
> > To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> >
> > What's this "dragging an image over an exe"? It's easy enough
> > for anyone
> > using Windows to simply set up a shortcut to squeak.exe.
> >
> No, if you learn Windows that files ending with .image have to be run in
> Squeak, then you can treat every image as a standalone application - for
> example a morph project, starting fullscreen.
> These people wouldn.t even know that it is Squeak.

Ah, if that is what Gary was on about, then I see the point. But I'm not
entirely sure he was! A neater by far solution (given that we probably
only want to distribute one distributable before it makes more sense to
say "download Squeak and file in my code") has been suggested and used
by Lex: simply rename squeak.exe to whatever the name of the distributed
application is and make a shortcut to it. That way the user doesn't have
to learn a Mac way of doing things -- I'd hesitate to call this a
metaphor, after all, it isn't "like" anything -- while running Windows.

> 
> Yes, yes I know it is more elegant to run all these images inside one
> Squeak, but that was not the question.

I'm not sure that Gary was actually asking a question.....;-) To my mind
it boils down to how many distributables you want lying around on your
system and the overheads of doing it that way. More one of practicality
than elegance.

Cheers

John


-- 
If you don't care about your data, like file systems which automagically
destroy themselves and have money to burn on 3rd party tools to keep
your
system staggering on, Microsoft (tm) have the Operating System for you.