Thanks Stef, I almost didn't send the email but I felt I should
contribute to a community who are working very hard to make a fantastic
system even more fantastic! Better than just whining about it further
down the track. Thanks for making a newbie welcome.

Hmmmm I think you have just pushed the bounds of this indifferent
programmer. Maybe an Exception? Or maybe just for these notifications in
the minimal kernel a different name for the method might do it. Or just
always use primitive beep in the minimal kernel functions.

I was thinking you might have a stub AbstractSound in the kernel, like
you might have stubs for I/O. For example in a headless system I don't
want sound and I want Transcript written to a logfile.
The "public" interface is all you have to stub out, this interface is
put on the swiki and newbies can find the few useful functions for the
subsystems easily. If people want to delve in more they can, but the key
IMHO is to get people up and running fast. That would go a long way to
realising everybody's visions.

I haven't thought this through completely and I know I am simplifying
things, I am very naive :)

Russell


-----Original Message-----
From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of
Stephane Ducasse
Sent: Tuesday, 13 May 2003 8:59 PM
To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
Subject: Re: A lurkers ravings (was RE: Smalltalk beep -> XXX beep?)
(anothertry)

hi russel

Your email made us think a lot. Much more than my original answer.
So we do not like to have beep in Object. Now what could be a better 
solution, but we do not
want to have the complete AbstractSound in the kernel.

I will try to implement it and send it for review soon.

Thanks for the sting

Stef