On 9/4/10, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 9/3/2010 3:08 PM, Bernhard Pieber wrote:
>> Am 03.09.2010 um 19:59 schrieb Ralph Johnson:
>>> On 9/3/10, Bert Freudenberg<bert at freudenbergs.de>  wrote:
>>>> A package is a (sub-) instance of PackageInfo. Packages are held by
>>>> PackageOrganizer.
>>>>
>>>> One idea would be to include a PackageInfo subclass in each package, and
>>>> its class comment or methods would describe the package. That would hook
>>>> into HelpSystem so one could browse comments, instructions, examples
>>>> etc. per package.
>>>>
>>>> There are a few conventions for that already, e.g. the class name should
>>>> end in "Info" and it should be in a category named "PackageName-Info".
>>> We could certainly include a PackageInfo subclass in a package.  But
>>> Monticello wouldn't use it to make the instance of the package, would
>>> it?
>> The strange thing is that PackageInfo supported subclasses from day one.
>> According to Avi they were even required at first. However, I looked but
>> could not find a place in the code where they are instantiated. It seems
>> that one has to manually register them by code in order to use them. It
>> seems that no PackageInfo subclasses can be created by just using the
>> tools. :-/
>
> If you explore "PackageOrganizer default packages" in 4.1 you will find
> that there is (for example) AnObsoleteFlexibleVocabulariesInfo. Which
> illustrates my dislike of PI subclassing very well :-)
>
> Cheers,
>    - Andreas
>
>

Andreas,
In the minimal image I use (
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-August/153026.html
) I do not find AnObsoleteFlexibleVocabulariesInfo anymore. So this
looks just like a bug.

Could you please elaborate why you do not like to subclass PackageInfo?

What is your proposal? Where should we put package descriptions, usage
instructions, example code snippets?

Cheers
--Hannes