[ENH] SoundSystemCleanup-gk ( [er][et] needs a little work )

ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Tue Feb 24 13:30:53 UTC 2004


> Well, I think I improved it. If we originally wanted to avoid having
> class Beeper "act as a global" then IMHO we should never have 
> introduced
> Beeper class>>beep. But IMHO I think "Beeper beep" is much better than
> "Beeper default beep" so... so be it.
exactly
but what we always wanted to avoid is to have class whose instance side 
is empty and having
only code on the class side. This is not about class not acting as 
global because I agree with you
global are not really good because you get two entries on the same 
stuff.
>
> Squeak style sidenote: Really can't see the great harm in having 
> classes
> "act as globals". They do it all the time anyway. What *is* confusing
> though is IMHO (repeat IMHO) globals holding an instance of a class 
> with
> another name. Like Processor or Transcript.
>
>> There are so much stuff to improve in squeak that that the ones 
>> working
>> well do not really have
>> to be the place of our energy.
>
> Obviously you haven't looked at the changeset. This is NOT about
> improving the silly Beeper thing - it is about making the sound package
> separated from the rest of Squeak. It just *happened* to involve Beeper
> - and when I see confusing code then I grab it by the balls and try to
> fix it.

I looked at it and I understood what you were doing. Still Beeper is a 
no brainer.

stef




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list