Hi richard

I agree with you and I'm thinking to see how we can program a 
clean/simpler/bookmorph with TESTS.
the active documentation. ;)

Stef

On 13 juil. 04, at 07:26, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:

> lex at cc.gatech.edu wrote:
> 	In short, BookMorph is old. ...
> 	Because of this history, I don't see a particular reason to fix up
> 	BookMorph at all. This is not some random widget, but is designed to 
> be
> 	a core part of the UI.  The UI doesn't use it any more. ...
> 	And really, why does it need to be fixed up anyway?
> 	It is perfectly fine just to delete the thing or even just to mark the
> 	comment as "no longer supported, but present for historical interest".
>
> I would have been very happy to see saving a BookMorph to a file work.
> I have several times used BookMorphs as a kind of "rich man's 
> PowerPoint"
> (NOT "poor man's" -- BookMorphs are *better* as far as I'm concerned).
>
> I have always put my occasional problems with BookMorphs down to 
> inadequate
> documentation.  I don't *care* whether they are a "core" part of the 
> UI or
> not, they do a useful job, and if they were better documented and not 
> left
> to rot I suspect more people would use them.
>
> By arguing in this way you could kill off practically ANY part of 
> Squeak.
> Conceal from people how to use it.
> Make incompatible changes to the system.
> Then say it's not core and doesn't need to be fixed.
>
> It may well be that BookMorphs *should* die, but PLEASE, someone write
> a *DETAILED* tutorial about how to get the same funcationality from the
> other aspects of the system FIRST.
>
> And I do mean detailed.  About the level of the documentation that
> BookMorph should have had in the first place, in fact.
>
>