On 2013-06-04, at 22:57, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 May 2013 19:47, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 20 May 2013 19:42,  <commits at source.squeak.org> wrote:
>>> A new version of MorphicExtras was added to project The Inbox:
>>> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/MorphicExtras-fbs.108.mcz
>>> 
>>> ==================== Summary ====================
>>> 
>>> Name: MorphicExtras-fbs.108
>>> Author: fbs
>>> Time: 20 May 2013, 7:42:41.076 pm
>>> UUID: ff1de6e0-6c3a-4322-9c1a-ce0bed2406df
>>> Ancestors: MorphicExtras-fbs.107
>>> 
>>> A ScrapBook uses a BookMorph to store Morphs. It replaces Utilities' scrapsBook.
>>> 
>>> =============== Diff against MorphicExtras-fbs.107 ===============
>> 
>> You need to load the System-side changes (in the System-fbs.532 in the
>> Inbox) before this one, or Bad Things Might Happen.
> 
> While this mainly works, under some conditions (I think clicking on
> the can itself?) you get a debugger because the ScrapBook isn't a
> morph; it just _has_ a morph. Implementing the missing method means
> hitting MNU after MNU as you implement many many Morph messages.
> Eventually you have to implement #privateOwner and then Bad Things
> Happen.
> 
> I really don't want to reimplement Morph's protocol in the ScrapBook,
> but I'm also really not a fan of proxying via #doesNotUnderstand:
> (because those kinds of proxies obscure the proxied object's API).
> 
> I'd love to hear some feedback on this work so I can close it off. It
> removes a class var from Utilities, and so makes Utilities that bit
> more pull-apart-able. (Eventually I'd like to see Utilities banished
> to the wilderness, but it's a long journey to that point.)
> 
> frank


Sounds like maybe it should be a morph, after all?

- Bert -