On 03.01.2014, at 20:18, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> OK, so that's you & I in agreement. I think Colin's happy for it to
>>> go. Any ol' timers out there with warnings of doom, before I rip this
>>> out?
>> 
>> Just FYI: this makes it impossible to use/port CodeTalk[1] in/to
>> Squeak 4.5.
>> And I actually used it once or twice, not that this would be important :)
> 
> Oh, that does matter.  Tobias, I think you're saying CodeTalk wants to
> store Text into the .changes and possibly MC because that's where it
> stores its code annotations.  Is that right?  But they don't actually
> need that preference too do they?

It just stores its information as text attributes, which then goes to
the Changes file, IIRC.
It has to patch monticello in order to save the information but that
is independent of the style stuff.

As a matter of fact, CodeTalk forces the Preference to be ON.

> 
> We should account for Robert Hirschfelds group which has put out some
> great tools and projects.  CodeTalk wants to continue to push
> Smalltalk ahead of the rest of the world still stuck in plain-text.
> 
> So, based on this, I think we should not change policy w.r.t. storing
> Text vs. Strings.  Text has #asString, so it doesn't seem there should
> be any extra complexity to deal with the outside world; probably less
> than trying to rip out something that's integrated and works.
> 

Thanks.

Best
	-Tobias


>> [1] https://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/hirschfeld/trac/SqueakCommunityProjects/wiki/codetalk

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1665 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140103/1196f54d/signature.pgp