On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Norton, Chris wrote:

> I have been avoiding pretty printing, because it does (did?) things
> that
> obfuscated the code for me.

I agree with this.

Basically, I really like the idea of pretty printing (standard
formatting), but I think the pretty printing in Squeak just isn't quite
"there yet".  If it were further improved, I'd probably use it all the
time.

I'd look forward to any improvements that Les and/or Dean might make.
(Heck, maybe I'll work on it at some point.)  Of course, an ideal pretty
printing format is a somewhat subjective thing, and if someone is actually
moving it forward, it'd be interesting to have some discussions on
readability, indentation, etc., on this list.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 Dean_Swan at Mitel.COM wrote:

> ... I've been chatting with John Maloney a little about this, and a
> nice pretty printer plus a modified 'Smalltalk abandonSources' method
> that would preserve comments, as well as temp names would be an easy
> way to lighten the complete Squeak system by 5 to 10 megabytes, which
> would be outstanding for use on
> things like PDAs.

I hadn't thought of this before... this would be fantastic!

This would also make things easier in a situation where you've lost a
.changes file.  Or if you want to distribute only an image to people, but
still give them some capability to edit source code, etc.

- Doug Way
  dway at mat.net