<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br></div><div><br>On Aug 18, 2018, at 6:02 AM, karl ramberg <<a href="mailto:karlramberg@gmail.com">karlramberg@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">WebClient and WebServer are the only packages that have real HelpBrowser documentation for both reference and use.<div>It would be nice to have similar documentation for other classes. But the framework is pretty much there</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>+1000. But this should be *in each package*. Pharo just introduced a PackageModel or some such off which one can hang various package attributes. Each package can have a subclass of this named <PackageName>PackageModel (eg Kernel<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">PackageModel). The most basic thing is something that describes what the package does. Wonderful things like Nebraska remain underused because it is not described briefly and hence is unknown to most users. Maybe this can be a focus for the next release. Let’s get 5.2 out ASAP and then aim for 6.0 to be an approachable release.</span><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Karl</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 12:58 AM David T. Lewis <<a href="mailto:lewis@mail.msen.com">lewis@mail.msen.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 05:42:24PM -0500, Ken Causey wrote:<br>
> On 8/17/2018 4:40 PM, tim Rowledge wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> >>On 17-08-2018, at 1:19 PM, Keith <<a href="mailto:keithy@consultant.com" target="_blank">keithy@consultant.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >>Hi,<br>
> >><br>
> >>where do we put documentation these days?<br>
> <br>
> While we are on this subject has anyone looked into adding documentation <br>
> at the category and/or package level? As someone who is barely paying <br>
> attention anymore but occasionally gets an itch to do some work in <br>
> Squeak it is really difficult to figure out what is already on hand in <br>
> an image at a high level, higher than per-class.<br>
> <br>
<br>
I do not know of anything that has been done in this regard, but on the<br>
face of it I cannot think of any reason that classes and methods should<br>
be objects, while method categories and class categories are just labels.<br>
<br>
Maybe somebody should do something about that.<br>
<br>
Dave<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span></span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>