Juan Vuletich wrote:
> Andreas Raab wrote:
>> Juan Vuletich wrote:
>>> Andreas Raab wrote:
>>>> Uhm, no, not really. It's a new feature not a fix. As such, it 
>>>> should be treated with some caution. I'm not saying that it can't be 
>>>> included but there are some aspects about it that make me feel very 
>>>> uneasy (for example the whole kadoodle in Grafport - I'm virtually 
>>>> certain that there will be situations where this is wrong).
>>>
>>> It is just a fix. Why should StrikeFonts break with more than 1 bpp? 
>>
>> Because they weren't designed to work with anything but 1bpp. 
>> Otherwise you might as well ask "Why should the Squeak VM break with 
>> Java bytecodes? It's just bytecodes after all." A nonsensical argument.
> 
> A closer (actually related) argument would say: "Why should BitBlt work 
> with anything but 1bpp? It was designed for that". Fortunately Dan 
> didn't see it that way, and we have Squeak and not just Smalltalk-80.

But where did Dan ever claim that extending BitBlt to handle more than 
1bpp was "just a fix"? As a matter of fact "Back to the Future" states 
explicitly: "EXTENSIONS of BitBlt to handle color of any depth" (see 
http://users.ipa.net/~dwighth/squeak/oopsla_squeak.html; emphasis mine).

Look, maybe you're not getting my point here but what I am questioning 
is your assertion that "this is just a fix" and "as such it should be 
part of the main Squeak image". I'm saying it's an extension and should 
therefore be treated with caution.

Cheers,
   - Andreas