Igor Stasenko wrote:
> http://n2.nabble.com/Preference-refactoring-again-tt2403814.html

Oh. That is indeed quite similar. Two comments:

* There is really no need to specify a #setter: in the pragma - the name 
of the setter can be derived from the getter (read-only preferences 
would be pointless, no? ;-)

* There is really no need to specify the default explicitly - it can be 
derived from the current value when the preference is registered.

Other than that it looks good. It would be trivial to adjust my version 
to use this pragma pattern but I would still prefer it if we could 
collaborate on the implementation.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

> 2009/3/5 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
>> Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>> I trust you and your implementation should go to current .image ASAP.
>>> If at some point some guy of different secta come with a better code, we
>>> don
>>> reject for "heretic" =:)
>> To the contrary. Let's give collaboration a chance. It would be stupid if we
>> ended up with just enough difference to make us incompatible at such a
>> superficial level. At the very least we should be waiting for a week or two
>> to see if there's any reaction from the Pharo folks. Even if there is no
>> reaction we should try to make it compatible at the interface (pragma)
>> level. I'd be willing to do at least that but I'd need to know what their
>> pragma spec actually looks like (can anyone subscribed to Pharo post an
>> example or point me to ti?)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>>
>>
> 
> 
>