Well, I guess I see the Package meta-data (comment, etc.) as part of
the *code* of that package, and so the "tool for manipulating the
package comment" is the Compiler, wielded via a class-browser...

What tool are you talking about?


On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich at vmware.com> wrote:
> 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 -
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>