Hi Sean,

Sean Charles wrote:
> 
> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 02:34 PM, Ingo Hohmann wrote:
<..>
>> About the winning checks, I first tried to use solely and: and or:, 
>> but then decided to write equalTo:and: at least it looked a little 
>> less messy (and worked ;-). Given the data structures I used, would 
>> there have been a better way?
> 
> What is 'better' grasshopper? Your way works and is readable and 
> understandable. Works for me.

I just thought there might be something like, e.g.
   ifAll: [ "do something"]
that may be sent to a block, and evaluates the "do sth" block, if all 
expressions in the receiving block return true, or something like that 
which I don't know of

> Yup. At the risk of trumpet blowing, if you visit http://www.bumpybibbers.
> com and then follow the SPLASHWORD link on the left hand side, you'll 
> see a taster for a full multi-media game I've written using Squeak. 
> Finished it last year. It plays pretty good. It's not there for download 
> as the only way I can package it is on CD because I used morphs glued 
> together and saved i.e. I've strayed from the path of declarativeness! I 
> only have a crappy modem link and the total upload size is about 25MB so 
> it won't be there this week! The entire site is a work-in-progress as 
> there is never enough time...

Just send it to me by email, and I'll upload it for you. ;-)

About the resizing code in ChessMorph>>addButtonRow, I still haven't 
figured out _why_ it works. Well, tomorrows another day.


Regards,

Ingo