Preference Implementation collaboration ? (Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: [ANN] Preference pragmas)

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>
> Date: 2009/3/5
> Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: [ANN] Preference pragmas
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> <[hidden email]>
>
>
> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>  
>> http://n2.nabble.com/Preference-refactoring-again-tt2403814.html
>>    
>
> Oh. That is indeed quite similar. Two comments:
>
> * There is really no need to specify a #setter: in the pragma - the
> name of the setter can be derived from the getter (read-only
> preferences would be pointless, no? ;-)
>
> * There is really no need to specify the default explicitly - it can
> be derived from the current value when the preference is registered.
>
> Other than that it looks good. It would be trivial to adjust my
> version to use this pragma pattern but I would still prefer it if we
> could collaborate on the implementation.
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>  
>> 2009/3/5 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:
>>    
>>> Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>>      
>>>> I trust you and your implementation should go to current .image ASAP.
>>>> If at some point some guy of different secta come with a better code, we
>>>> don
>>>> reject for "heretic" =:)
>>>>        
>>> To the contrary. Let's give collaboration a chance. It would be stupid if we
>>> ended up with just enough difference to make us incompatible at such a
>>> superficial level. At the very least we should be waiting for a week or two
>>> to see if there's any reaction from the Pharo folks. Even if there is no
>>> reaction we should try to make it compatible at the interface (pragma)
>>> level. I'd be willing to do at least that but I'd need to know what their
>>> pragma spec actually looks like (can anyone subscribed to Pharo post an
>>> example or point me to ti?)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>  - Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>
>>    
>
>
>
>
>
>