@Hernan

i found that this message are sent from method, overridden by Alien package.
Indee, in 4.1. there is no senders of it.
So, i think that Alien needs some cleaning to not use it anymore.

On 11 May 2010 15:56, Nicolas Cellier
<nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.