On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:22:09 +0200, stéphane ducasse  
<ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> Klaus wrote:
>> I put together what I think is relevant for a new source code subsystem  
>> and, if I'm mistaken or have overlooked one of your recent suggestions  
>> and/or requirements, please do not hesitate and say so.
>>
>> What follows is not intended as a replacement for MC or SM, rather the  
>> new subsystem should be as independent as possible. If you load  
>> something with MC, the new subsystem can treat it like any other  
>> contribution (more about contributions later).
>
> I would really like to have a distinction between Doit and definition.  
> Because this way we could build much clever tools. In VW classDef are  
> not doit and you can eliminate doits when you want to do a replay all.

Sure. In my huble opinion there must be a backpointer for each and every  
class,trait definition like it is for method definitions and class  
comments. Alternately we can provide
- http://www.sticky-notes.net/
together with all Squeak distributions (putting the [|] logo on them as  
default) such that the developer can write down the previous definition in  
case they are going to be changed ;-)

> Do I understand correctly by saying that this would be a component that  
> could be put between the sources/changes and MC for example.

I think it'll work on the sources/changes interface (and unify both  
files). If MC & friends use that interface, fine. I have as yet not  
completed analysis of what interface MC and SM (the prominent examples)  
use from the "base" image. I'd appreciate someone shares the respective  
requirement def's (of MC and SM), that'd save me quite some time.

/Klaus