It seems that Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> First, add the [cd] tag - you've done the work (the changes are
> documented), make it explicit.

Yes, but:

-should I add my big comments to the change set preamble?
-what about things that I say are fixed in following change sets? should I
merge the fixes so you can accept MCP0001 safely?

> The change set is big, but it's simple. It's really a very focused, very
> specific refactoring throughout, so it's pretty easy to approve. In the
> future, document this fact more clearly - the fact that it's so focused
> should make me prefer this change to something more wide ranging, but it
> won't if I have to read the code to understand it.

Ok.

> The change is described as:
> ***********
> * refactor of #initialize methods
> * added/implemented #defaultBounds, #defaultBorderColor,
> #defaultBorderWidth and #defaultColor
> * some small methods categorization
> * remove of most direct asignation for color, bounds, borderColor and
> borderWidth variables
> ***********
>
> I would understand it much better like this -
> ***********
> Enforce existing "template method" pattern for Morph>>initialize and
> Morph>>basicInitialize.
> Extend it to initialize bounds and border properties in addition to
> color.
> In the process, removes most direct accesses to the relevant variables,
> setting the stage for protecting those variables completely.
> ***********

Well, what is clearer is somehow subjective, but we will try.


> If you think its ready, send it to the list as a [FIX] (until we get
> sqfixes to harvest automatically the [REFACTOR] flag), with the [cd][er]
> flags. Since it seems simple and well documented to me, I'll give it
> priority.

Ok, depends on previous questions.

Thanks for your comments Daniel,


German Morales and the MCP team