Andreas Raab wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
I think you made your opinion clear. And so did I. Nothing else to add.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich