Chris Muller wrote:
>>>This is an example of ownership becoming bottleneck.
>>
>>Only if you can show that there was actually anything that needed to be 
>>done. I'm still waiting for that...
> 
> Well, isn't Marcus still waiting for you to "concede" as promised, since he
> posted that fix to bring Chess up to work with the new Wide strings?  Sounds
> like an indisputable improvement to me that shouldn't have been held up by
> owner bottleneck..

Please do your homework. The Mantis bug reports for that problem are 
right here:

   http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=1591
   http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=1879

I fail to see Marcus in this discussion at all. Besides my challenge was 
to take any of the changes that were already done to the chess game. Of 
course, there can be bugs but none of the changes up until now fixed any 
bug.

> I was thinking of the method-annotations for the events.  IIRC, Dan had
> questioned you about making the syntax more complex.  So it was a change, at
> least initially, for which won his support later..

Well, if you think that I did the method annotations over Dan's head, 
then show me a version of Squeak that actually had them. Doing something 
differently isn't the same as doing something over someone's head. Yes, 
if I had just posted the method annotations in the SqC update stream 
without asking Dan, then I would indeed have done that over Dan's head. 
But I didn't do that.

Cheers,
   - Andreas