Agreeing to this subthread, I'd say instead of "So maybe we should ...
making those subclasses, ... at least a strongly encouraged best
practice." "make creating those subclasses easy by having better tool
support".

Tool support meaning:
1. The comment is actually shown in the appropriate places (package lists)
2. The class can be created as a side effect of some package operation
exposed in the right places.

Very interesting discussion... hope at least one experiment comes out of it.

Daniel


On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:52:00 -0800, Ned Konz <ned at squeakland.org> wrote:
> On Saturday 12 February 2005 3:40 pm, Avi Bryant wrote:
> > However, one advantage of doing it that way is that it provides an
> > obvious place to hang things like package comments, and potentially
> > lots of other interesting metadata (like how to access the
> > corresponding SM package).  It also provides a nice declarative form
> > of the package declaration - ie, it makes it extremely obvious how you
> > add a PI to the update stream.  So maybe we should think about making
> > those subclasses, if not mandatory, at least a strongly encouraged
> > best practice.
> 
> And, of course, it provides a great place to stick the package-level
> installation/deinstallation code.
> 
> --
> Ned Konz
> http://bike-nomad.com/squeak/
> 
> 


-- 
Daniel Vainsencher