On Feb 11, 2008 3:16 PM, itsme213 <itsme213 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Keith Hodges" <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>
> > Your suggestion of Documentation classes comes but one month after I
> > suggested the very same.
>
> Newbie alert .... Why not make package and class-category proper objects
> with their own documentation? Is it too far-reaching a change? Or would MC
> not handle them since they are not classes or methods? Do those who know
> the
> Squeak image well think that would be a bad move? Are there some other
> good
> reasons to not go that route? All of the above? :-)
>


That's what I did when I implemented Namespaces. If you want to play with
them, you can load them ("NamespaceTools") from the Universes Browser on a
3.10 image. Note that they're still actively work in progress, incomplete
and quite buggy.

Package has become a proper object, and the class categories have been
replaced with Namespace, which are also proper objects.

I haven't touched method categories at all, but they are also a candidate
for refactoring.

Note that MC does not work at all with my implementation.

Gulik.

-- 
http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg
http://gulik.pbwiki.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20080211/9dd6e531/attachment.htm