On 05.03.2009, at 00:34, Michael Rueger wrote:

> Andreas Raab wrote:
>> Folks -
>> I wanted to make the property whether to show individual processes  
>> in MessageTally a preference and couldn't recall any of the three  
>> gazillion methods to create one ;-) So I decided enough is enough  
>> and added the ability to register a preference via Pragma. In other  
>> words, you specify two class side accessors (using MessageTally as  
>> example):
>> showProcesses
>>    "Indicates whether to show each process separately or  
>> cumulatively."
>>    <preference: 'Show Processes in MessageTally'
>>        category: 'debug'
>>        balloonHelp: 'If enabled, each profiled process is shown  
>> individually in MessageTally'
>>        type: #Boolean>
>>    ^ShowProcesses
>
> Looking at your version I see you made some slightly different  
> design choices than in the design that has been in design discussion  
> and worked on in the last couple of weeks on the Pharo list.
>
> Can you elaborate what motivated the different design? Meaning what  
> parts of the Pharo version could be made better? Or, sorry for  
> basically asking the same thing three times, what would it take to  
> adopt the Pharo version for Squeak?


Hmm, at least I am not aware of what is going on in Pharoland. I'm  
reluctant to subscribe to the Pharo list. Not because I'm not  
interested, but because for one my spare time is already filled up by  
Etoys+Squeak+OLPC+Sugar, and also because the Pharo creators went to  
their own playground specifically to get away from certain opinions on  
squeak-dev. I feel like I shouldn't haunt them uninvitedly.

I wonder if someone could summarize what's going on on the greener  
side, like the weekly excerpts we sometimes get for squeak-dev ... or  
is there such a thing for Pharo already?

Anyway, I think it's great you point out this existing design.  
Duplication of effort is not something we should put up with in our  
small community. Do you have a direct pointer to the code in question?

- Bert -