Hi Juan,

on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:01:12 +0200, you wrote:
> Hi Klaus,
>
>> Concentrating on the remaining issue(s): why is it so important that
>> Morphic must be independent of Etoys, are they (have they) subclasses  
>> etc
>> of each other? Or are there political reasons for having such an
>> independence, or license reasons? Or what (perhaps elegance, perhaps
>> maintainability)?
>
> Elegance and maintainability. Also to make it easier to use Morphic for
> other purposes (for example, writing applications), that won't use eToys.

Great!

>> If there isn't anybody suggesting that she/he will divide Morphic by
>> Etoys, starting with 3.9 and targeting for example 3.10 or 4.0, then
>> please treat these questions as 100%[tm] rhetoric, thank you.
>>
>> /Klaus
>
> Well, In this very thread I said I have already done it in 3.7 (meaning I
> showed that it can be done, that I can do it, and that you can check the
> quality of my work). I also said I volunteer for doing it once more, in
> the latest image, if the community wants to adopt it.

Yes, I'm happy to hearing this, and I thank you!

> I also add here that I would remove only what the community wants  
> removed.
> I mean, Goran said recently he would like to keep Flaps in. Ok. If we can
> decide what to remove and what to keep, I'll be happy to follow that
> decision.

Why would he want that? What's his use case for it? Personally I would  
wait for the outcome of

-  
http://www.google.com/search?q=designer+sex+kilobuck+site:lists.squeakfoundation.org

> Note that I'm not volunteering to make eToys loadable back in. I already
> said why.
>
> So, you see, the question is not rethoric at all.

:)

/Klaus

> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich