[squeak-dev] The Trunk: System-tpr.962.mcz

H. Hirzel hannes.hirzel at gmail.com
Fri Sep 22 10:29:43 UTC 2017

The comment may contain a link to the wiki page and the wiki page may
have more than 24 lines ...   :-) This is very welcome.

Another probably better option is to have a help topic which titles like

     - How do I create a user interface theme?
     - How do user interface themes work?
     - User interface themes migration issues

On 9/22/17, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/22/17, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I couldn't disagree more about your "never" and "ever", but that's
>> beside the point.  My complaint is about the comment itself.  Some
>> authors like for their system to maintain a cohesive and consistently
>> terse commenting style that _compliments_ the code, not supplants it.
>> I wanted you to "read the code" so you would see and respect this
>> existing original style of minimal, carefully-crafted word selections.
>> I know you meant well, but when I saw "devious" it read like you were
>> reacting, because they teach us in Smalltalk school that we should not
>> override DNU.  Your long comment feels like you're "punishing" that
>> 4 lines of code with 24 lines of over-explanation, replete with
>> examples.  That's good stuff for the swiki,
> +1 for having more explanations on the swiki
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6508  UserInterfaceTheme
> in particular
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6576 UserInterfaceTheme design note
>> but orthogonal to the rest
>> of the style and a distraction from this particular code, IMO.
>> Breathe...
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:57 AM, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
>>>> On 18-09-2017, at 9:20 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> With all due respect, Tim, this comment reads like your "reaction".
>>>> It doesn't leave the reader with any more clarity than from simply
>>>> reading the code.
>>> “Read the code” is never an acceptable response to someone wanting to
>>> understand what some code is *supposed* to do or how to use it. Except
>>> just possibly if said code is so utterly beautifully written and
>>> complete
>>> with all possible cases clearly handled and easily comprehend examples
>>> are
>>> trivially findable that it really does just explain everything. I do not
>>> believe any such piece of code has ever been written, nor is likely to
>>> be
>>> so.
>>> tim
>>> --
>>> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>>> Strange OpCodes: PBF: Pay Bus Fare

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list