Nevermind..  I'm late to this party..

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, I do not question the usefulness of pragmas for what they have
>> been used so far. Primitives and version control related things. I
>> oppose to use them in addition for menu definitions.
>
> Hi Hannes, I agree with you.  A new non-Smalltalk construct appears
> and we see that it starts to get used for lots of things where before
> we would have just used plain Smalltalk..
>
> Can we stay with Smalltalk everywhere except where it's impossible or
> impractical to?
>
>> adding
>> entries to the menu is not possible in a clean way.
>
> I don't know about displaying the pictures, I just use the 'open'
> button.  But, I do use the "services" function to add my own custom
> application functions to the file-list.  Did you know about that or
> are you saying that it needs improvement..?
>
>>
>> --Hannes
>>
>> On 4/26/10, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>>> On 27.04.2010, at 00:21, Hannes Hirzel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Terminology is important and the terminology we currently
>>>>> have is *extremely* confusing.
>>>>
>>>> And that is why I am reluctant having these pragmas 'crawl' into menu
>>>> definitions.
>>>
>>> Now that's just silly, sorry. Nobody is questioning the utility of these
>>> guys, whatever we call them.
>>>
>>> - Bert -
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>