Well, I guess I see the Package meta-data (comment, etc.) as part of the *code* of that package, and so the "tool for manipulating the package comment" is the Compiler, wielded via a class-browser...
What tool are you talking about?
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Dale Henrichs dhenrich@vmware.com wrote:
Chris,
I would think that if you are going to write tools to manipulate the package comment then you'd want to guarantee that there was a place to find/store the comment so extending PackageInfo would seem to be the ticket ...
Dale
----- Original Message ----- | From: "Chris Muller" asqueaker@gmail.com | To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org | Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 8:44:42 AM | Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Documentation/Comment per package | | But each package may potentially want to have its own subclasses of | PackageInfo for special configuration and/or additional information? | | Therefore, we don't need to be adding any state to PackageInfo. | | | | On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Bert Freudenberg | bert@freudenbergs.de wrote: | > | > On 26.07.2012, at 16:26, H. Hirzel wrote: | > | >> On 7/15/12, Chris Muller asqueaker@gmail.com wrote: | >>> Create a subclass of PackageInfo for your package. | >> | >> | >> PackageInfo subclasses | >> gives | >> | >> {MCDirtyPackageInfo . MCEmptyPackageInfo . MCMockPackageInfo} | >> | >> And there seems to be no place of putting a description of the | >> package there. | >> Am I missing something? | >> | >> Chris, | >> Could you please do an example e.g. for Monticello-Base and | >> Monticello-Resitory? | >> | >> -- Hannes | > | > | > If having a comment for each package is desirable then we could add | > it to PackageInfo just like it already supports scripts. | > | > - Bert - | > | > | |