This is one of the things that made pulling current Polymorph stuff into Squeak painful. If we shared a common ToolBuilder implementation, I would image that other pain points might disappear too.<div><br></div><div>+1<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:32 AM, stephane ducasse <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephane.ducasse@gmail.com">stephane.ducasse@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Yes we are.<br>
Even if there was some discussions about the usefulness of toolbuilder spec - I would be in favor.<br>
<br>
Stef<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
> On 4/21/2010 4:32 AM, Hannes Hirzel wrote:<br>
>> A question: Art the ToolBuilder in Squeak 4.1 and Pharo 1.0 the same?<br>
>> Or if there is a difference what is the impact of it?<br>
>><br>
>> Or put the question in another way. If I code an UI using the<br>
>> ToolBuilder in Squeak 4.1 will it run in Pharo?<br>
><br>
> They are mostly the same but not identical. If there is interest in the Pharo community we should merge the versions upstream in <a href="http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html" target="_blank">http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html</a> (contact me if you're interested).<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
> - Andreas<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>