Hmm, any considerations towards/against adding this to the image?

Sounds like a nice addition to me.

Daniel

Stephen Pair <spair at acm.org> wrote:
> Ok, for now I'll leave the accessors in the "Named Process" package as
> #name(:).  If I discover any weirdness (haven't yet)...I'll revert it
> back to #processName(:).
> 
> - Stephen
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> > [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> > Behalf Of Ned Konz
> > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 6:02 PM
> > To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > Subject: Re: [ANN] Named Process (on SqueakMap)
> > 
> > 
> > On Thursday 05 December 2002 11:23 am, Stephen Pair wrote:
> > > for some reason, the process browser checks for the presence of 
> > > #processName (why, I don't know...perhaps someone could shed some 
> > > light).
> > 
> > I don't remember, other than perhaps (1) I'd seen another 
> > dialect that 
> > used #processName (forget which one), or (2) I was avoiding #name: 
> > because of some wierdness.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ned Konz
> > http://bike-nomad.com
> > GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE
> > 
> > 
> >