As to BookMorph itself, it sounds like its a piece of the system that
some people use - it should be a package, external or internal. Someone
that wants to give it some love should make sure its not hardcoded 
anywhere, make a nice package for it, with nice docs, and put it on SM. 

Then the decision of whether it is in any particular image or not is a
trivial one to change.

If someone cares about BM either way, the first thing to do in the
process is to see where references to it are hardcoded, which would be
also the first step in deleting it anyway.

So this is the same things we've talked about a long time ago - most 
of the solution to the complexity problem in Squeak is refactoring things 
into packages. So why do you guys think this is not happening faster?

Daniel

goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:53:35 +0200
> From: goran.krampe at bluefish.se
> Subject: Re: How to improve Squeak
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> envelope-to: danielv at localhost
> delivery-date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:30:37 +0300
> reply-to: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> 
> Hi all!
> 
> I am a bit lost here. I use BookMorph for my presentations. I save them
> currently using the ... well, whatever "save morph" does - probably a
> refstream.
> 
> I never bothered with SqueakPages etc, because I knew that was rotten
> anyway.
> 
> So what is the problem? BookMorph works just fine - no need to dump it
> at all, just rip out the SqueakPage-whatever-it-is-stuff. :)
> 
> regards, Gsran