May I suggest reserving [CCC] and Re: [CCC] title lines to actual proposals for comments, and actual proposals for amendments thereto, perhaps after a discussion? Obviously comments on documentation invite substantial discussion -- and that is good, but in time someone will need to edit these documents, and it would be nice if he/she could rely on the headings alone to assure that he/she had the final word on the consensus of the community, without having to browse through extensive discussion.

-----Original Message----- From: MIME :crovira@wt.net > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 11:00 AM To: squeak@cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [CCC] a few comments on the comments on my comments...

...

...

Hello Chris,

the var name classes it could assume are a pain to get right post

implementation. For some things its very difficult to get > right (and that's only structural description,) the really hard part is "why?"

...

I think we may very well cause the sources file and change > sets to become huge.

So what? :-)

...

-Charles-A. "Norton, Chris" wrote:

...

Hi!

Dwight Hughes [SMTP:dwighth@ipa.net] wrote:

"Believe me, I would like to see things go far beyond what > they are now (and
I have a number of ideas of what and how), but all of that > is just smoke and
noise until we create the core documentation to begin with."

Here here! You are doing a fine, contentious job Dwight! > More power to you and many thanks from me!

Although Mr. Rovira has some good points, a lot of > formalism can be added post-factum. In particular, I think an > auto-comment-generator (see Dan & Vassili's ideas in that direction) should be added to Squeak _in_addition_to_ the traditional, hand-crafted comments. > Then we'll get our cake and eat it too.

Thanks for your helpful additions to Squeak!

---==> Chris

PS> I particularly liked your 2nd definition of Object! Nice job.

...

...