On 3 January 2014 19:32, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> 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.

So effectively CodeTalk turns

newText := (requestor notNil and: [Preferences confirmFirstUseOfStyle])
    ifTrue: [aText askIfAddStyle: priorMethodOrNil req: requestor]
    ifFalse: [aText]

into aText?

Doing that means we can rip out #askIfAddStyle:req and Preferences
confirmFirstUseOfStyle. That would sever the Collections -> Tools
dependency, and would be a late Christmas treat for me.

frank

>> 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