Hi Hernan,
I agree with Bert and Andreas, your message is not informative enough.
I strongly encourage you to search #withStyleFor:do: in squeak-dev archives.

You will find a very recent message from Igor (may 2nd) with an answer
- and thanks to automatic commits - you have full tracability of
refactorings and will trace what happened to this message.

If it appears that this message is usefull (for which package ?) you then can:
- easily solve the problem for yourself (restore #withStyleFor:do:)
- come back with a rationale for solving it for everyone
  * either restore the message
  * or clean the package

Hope this helps

Nicolas


2010/5/11 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
> On 5/11/2010 12:51 AM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>
>> This is diversion, my e-mail was not intended to diagnose social
>> action, the power of conventions or norms.
>
> It may be a diversion, but mostly it's an attempt to explain to you that
> your e-mail was completely useless. For some reason you are assuming that
> everyone must know why you think you've discovered a bug, even though you
> are neither providing context nor rationale for your foregone conclusion.
>
> Hint: The DNU you've encountered cannot happen in 4.1. There are simply no
> senders of that method. If you still think you've discovered a bug you'll
> have to back up your claims with *some* substance.
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>> 2010/5/11 Andreas Raab<andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
>>>
>>> On 5/10/2010 10:16 PM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Where is the question? It's just a bug report.
>>>
>>> http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#id382249
>>>
>>> "Don't rush to claim that you have found a bug
>>>
>>> When you are having problems with a piece of software, don't claim you
>>> have
>>> found a bug unless you are very, very sure of your ground. Hint: unless
>>> you
>>> can provide a source-code patch that fixes the problem, or a regression
>>> test
>>> against a previous version that demonstrates incorrect behavior, you are
>>> probably not sure enough. This applies to webpages and documentation,
>>> too;
>>> if you have found a documentation “bug”, you should supply replacement
>>> text
>>> and which pages it should go on.
>>>
>>> Remember, there are many other users that are not experiencing your
>>> problem.
>>> Otherwise you would have learned about it while reading the documentation
>>> and searching the Web (you did do that before complaining, didn't you?).
>>
>> This is not complaining, it is just an informative e-mail, you may do
>> anything you want with it. Maybe the guy who wrote that have a lot of
>> free time to read documentation, maybe he was paid for supporting open
>> source software, I'm not.
>>
>>> This means that very probably it is you who are doing something wrong,
>>> not
>>> the software.
>>
>> Prescriptive statement, besides, it's always about the people.
>>
>>>
>>> The people who wrote the software work very hard to make it work as well
>>> as
>>> possible.
>>
>> Hasty generalization or composition
>>
>>> If you claim you have found a bug, you'll be impugning their
>>> competence,
>>
>> Irrelevant association, quality or correcteness of a particularization
>> doesn't imply inherently qualities of generalizations like competence.
>>
>>> which may offend some of them even if you are correct. It's
>>> especially undiplomatic to yell “bug” in the Subject line.
>>>
>>> When asking your question, it is best to write as though you assume you
>>> are
>>> doing something wrong, even if you are privately pretty sure you have
>>> found
>>> an actual bug. If there really is a bug, you will hear about it in the
>>> answer. Play it so the maintainers will want to apologize to you if the
>>> bug
>>> is real, rather than so that you will owe them an apology if you have
>>> messed
>>> up."
>>>
>>
>> He seems concerned about public behavior and specially the moral value
>> of apologies (although his vocabulary is really far from a
>> professional sociologist or specialist in moral ethics). Let's focus
>> to this "incorrect" behavior, you suggest it's not a bug, so it
>> shouldn't be fixed? Or you would not integrate a fix for it? I would
>> appreciate if you explain why the MNU #withStyleFor:do: isn't a bug so
>> I can adapt my tools around it.
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Hernán
>>
>>
>
>
>