[BUG][FIX] Browser new initialize

[Robert Hirschfeld]

Hi Ken -- 

Thanks for pointing all that out. While I believe that our 
Image has more seviere problems than my trailing period <grin>, 
I definitely agree that changes to an existing method 
should respect the coding style (if any) of the author 
of the original code. Please find the adjusted version 
attached to this mail. 

All the best, 
Robert 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ken at kencausey.com [mailto:ken at kencausey.com] 
> Sent: May 15, 2004 00:31
> To: robert.hirschfeld at gmx.net
> Subject: [BUG][FIX] Browser new initialize 
> 
> 
> 
> I would recommend resubmitting this changeset.
> 
> First of all you seem to have attached the changeset twice, 
> once gzipped and once not.  Either way is fine although 
> gzipped is preferred.  I'm afraid having it attached twice 
> may cause a problem for the semi-automated update processing system.
> 
> Secondly, this may seem silly, but you added a trailing 
> period to what would otherwise be a single line removal.  It 
> would be one thing if you were submitting a new method and 
> just happened to put a period after the last line.  That 
> would likely be ignored.  But adding a trailing period to an 
> existing method that doesn't have one is not a great idea.  
> There are divided opinions on the subject, but in general I 
> think the consensus is that trailing periods are unnecessary 
> and should be avoided.  I know at least one implementation of 
> a simple smalltalk system for which a trailing period would 
> be a performance problem.
> 
> Thanks for your submission!
> 
> Ken
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BrowserNewInitializeFix-rhi.cs.gz
Type: application/x-gzip
Size: 474 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-harvest/attachments/20040517/8d17932a/BrowserNewInitializeFix-rhi.cs-0001.bin