Marcus Denker <marcus at ira.uka.de> wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 03:35:44AM +0200, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> > I'm not asking that you sell it to the whole world, and I'm not saying
> > it should stay on SM. But why should we not be able to get one more
> > independent person to seriously use and vouch for *the only solution*
> > for Squeak multilingualization? why should it matter for this that it's
> > on SM? and not included? because we might choose to go with the
> > competition? there isn't any.

> > I would really love Squeak base to be multilingual, but I don't think
> > we're ready yet, even if it turns out the code is ready. OTOH, it only
> > been easily available to the world for a short time. Maybe it'll attract
> > users by or even before 3.7.
> >=20
> 
> No, it won't[snip]
> Actually, Esther Mietzsch just posted to the german squeakers list that
> she has nearly finished a complete german Squeak using Yoshiki's stuff,
> so this will get very important for us in the future.
Ah, so it did get more users after all. I'm happy to hear that. Please
encourage her to make her work very visible (maybe prepare an informal
demo for ESUG?), and give a lot feedback about the design, and maybe
that'll be the one more voice I at least wanted to hear, and we can have
it in 3.6.

> it even doesn't work anymore in 3.5 (it worked fine in 3.4).
> I think the main reason is that it adds to many methods that contructs
> the user-interface to make it multi-language. That's a nice example
> that there is a big difference between a patch and a module: patches
> are *extremely* fragile.=20
We agree this is a patch, I am aware it is not viale for the long term
outside the image. OTOH, being a patch by itself doesn't guarantee that
it won't screw us up. How do you reconcile these two? popular stuff
needs to get reviewed before inclusion, and quick. I hope it will be
working out wonderfully for this example.

Daniel