Chris,

I would think that if you are going to write tools to manipulate the package comment then you'd want to guarantee that there was a place to find/store the comment so extending PackageInfo would seem to be the ticket ...

Dale

----- Original Message -----
| From: "Chris Muller" <asqueaker at gmail.com>
| To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
| Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 8:44:42 AM
| Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Documentation/Comment per package
| 
| But each package may potentially want to have its own subclasses of
| PackageInfo for special configuration and/or additional information?
| 
| Therefore, we don't need to be adding any state to PackageInfo.
| 
| 
| 
| On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Bert Freudenberg
| <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
| >
| > On 26.07.2012, at 16:26, H. Hirzel wrote:
| >
| >> On 7/15/12, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
| >>> Create a subclass of PackageInfo for your package.
| >>
| >>
| >> PackageInfo subclasses
| >>  gives
| >>
| >> {MCDirtyPackageInfo . MCEmptyPackageInfo . MCMockPackageInfo}
| >>
| >> And there seems to be no place of putting a description of the
| >> package there.
| >> Am I missing something?
| >>
| >> Chris,
| >> Could you please do an example e.g. for Monticello-Base and
| >> Monticello-Resitory?
| >>
| >> -- Hannes
| >
| >
| > If having a comment for each package is desirable then we could add
| > it to PackageInfo just like it already supports scripts.
| >
| > - Bert -
| >
| >
| 
|