Frank Sergeant <frank at canyon-medical.com> wrote:
> Hannes Hirzel <hannes.hirzel.squeaklist at bluewin.ch> wrote:
> 
> > HH: I do not think you can say their work is more experimental than
> > other parts of
> > Squeak; in fact you guides are considering shipping a broken image right
> > now, with 
> > an error that almost every Smalltalk in the last twenty years hadn't -
> > the ability
> > to compile itself. Proposed reason: A newbie will not notice! (Sic!)
> 
> I was under the impression that this minor lack (I'm reluctant to call
> it a bug ;)) has been present in Squeak for a very long time. 

The bug is  not present in the release 3.2 which is still *the* download

people are told to get when visiting www.squeak.org. 

See my test report
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/squeak/1549922

If it is minor or not depends on what you intend Squeak to use for.

 
> Am I wrong?  In other words, it is not a simple case of a recent change set
> having broken this.  Thus, why the rush on fixing it?  

It was broken some time ago. But in general that is not 
an argument for shipping something broken.
However people are now finalizing these days release 3.4 which will 
contain the bug and I accept that.

The bug fix will be rolled in version 3.5 with a planned release date
for end of this month.

http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/79

[snip]

> And on a somewhat different topic:
> 
> > Edmund is just proposes to declare to have international script support
> > as a long term goal for Squeak.
> 
> Long term, with plenty of thought, might not be so bad.  

Great that you agree!

> Without knowing
> anything about the subject, I'll just offer that one of my hopes for
> Squeak is a very small core with simply everything possible as an
> add-on.  That way, those who do not want the kitchen sink are not stuck
> with it.

Well we international non-Anglo-Saxon / non-Spanish users do not
consider
proper language support "kitchen sink".

-- Hannes