Sure, I'd be glad to work together on the RB. Since John Brant is
supposed to be there, even the license issues might be fixable...

Daniel

Roel Wuyts <wuyts at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> Maybe we could get some (preliminary) work going at the CampSmalltalk 
> in ESUG? I am willing to work on this.
> The license is another issue of course.
> 
> On Friday, Aug 15, 2003, at 08:31 Europe/Zurich, Daniel Vainsencher 
> wrote:
> 
> > Marcus Denker <marcus at ira.uka.de> wrote:
> >> I think It would be nice to actually move the Rafactoring browser in
> >> the image. There are manu reasons:
> >> 1) It's no module. It's a patch.
> > Actually, it is mostly a module. It has rather too many patch elements
> > mostly because "working out of the box" and "being a module" use to
> > clash far more than they do now (no dynamic open menu when I produced
> > the current version, IIRC). Also it was rather difficult to get trivial
> > patches into the image... you get the idea.
> >
> >> 2) Lots of the subsystems of RB have allready counterparts in the 
> >> image,
> >> these should get integrated. e.g. it has a parseTree that is much more
> >> nicely to work with than the standard squeak one (and which are used 
> >> by
> >> the closurecompiler). If we integrate it with the system, it could use
> >> the standard Scanner/parser.
> > Problems -
> > A. It is a non trivial piece of software, so its worth thinking about
> > whether thats something we really want in the image.
> > B. Putting stuff in the image makes it harder to maintain.
> > C. Unclear license.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> Roel Wuyts                                                   Software 
> Composition Group
> roel.wuyts at iam.unibe.ch                       University of Bern, 
> Switzerland
> http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~wuyts/
> Board Member of the European Smalltalk User Group: www.esug.org