Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Developers

Spec new release :)

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

65 messages Options

1234

NorbertHartl

Re: Spec new release :)

> Am 13.11.2013 um 19:22 schrieb Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>:
>
> C- because I'm funny

My bet would go on this option :)

Norbert

Camillo Bruni-3

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse

On 2013-11-13, at 22:26, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I will write and send a proposal to the list. Good idea.

... and put it in the documentation repository, I thought of gathering the documentation
there, centralized, transparent open for contributions from everybody.

signature.asc (457 bytes) Download Attachment

Camillo Bruni-3

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse

On 2013-11-13, at 21:19, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> It would be completely silly to have class comments in MD (no matter how cool this would be) _and_ *not* be able to have Nautilus parse/render them, with active links, etc…
>
> With Athens inside the image we will use the pier parser to generate a document tree and render it inside the image.

What has this to do with athens?
We already have a prototype implementation with Markdown using the existing text model. Worked already fine, so that should be 1 afternoon of work to get the pier syntax running in the current image.

signature.asc (457 bytes) Download Attachment

Jan Vrany

Re: Spec new release :)

> We already have a prototype implementation with Markdown using the
> existing text model.Worked already fine,

Where can I find it? I'm quite interested.

Jan

Stéphane Ducasse

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Camillo Bruni-3

>>> It would be completely silly to have class comments in MD (no matter how cool this would be) _and_ *not* be able to have Nautilus parse/render them, with active links, etc…
>>
>> With Athens inside the image we will use the pier parser to generate a document tree and render it inside the image.
>
> What has this to do with athens?

I want really nice font so this is not really related to athens and was confused.

> We already have a prototype implementation with Markdown using the existing text model. Worked already fine, so that should be 1 afternoon of work to get the pier syntax running in the current image.

Where it is? that we add it to our todo?
because having a real domain model (which we have) is the way to go. I do not want to hack stuff.
Now we ***HAVE*** a fully working pier parser and creating domain and we ARE enhancing it already.

Stef

Benjamin Van Ryseghem (Pharo)

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Sven Van Caekenberghe-2

I ask Damien Cassou this morning about that.

He told me it should be quite easy to do :)

(just another visitor I guess)

Ben

On 13 Nov 2013, at 20:28, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 13 Nov 2013, at 20:22, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote:

Why not generating markdown code from pier code?
If the whole problem is exposure on the web. Someone has considered pdf2html or latex2html? Maybe my question is naive, I do not know.

It is not silly, and yes it could be done quite easily I guess, if it even has not yet been done already.

On some point, i have tried to generate the roassal documentation from the Roassal Help, but it makes the maintenance loop heavy: If I want to fix something in the text, I had to edit the Help in Pharo, generating the document, compiling into .pdf. Quite heavy it was. At the end, I only worked on the .tex files.

Alexandre

On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 13 Nov 2013, at 19:59, Benjamin <[hidden email]> wrote:

It was a real question, and it feels like you overreacted the answer …

To me, markdown or pier is a new syntax to learn so I am asking …
To me, doing Pier because you do or because you said to is no really an argument.

Then I am open to a real answer but I also see that markdown is integrated to a lot of tools (github and jekylls by examples)
and that a lot of people knows about markdown.

This was a real question, not a troll …

I like .md as well and yes, the github integration makes it compelling.

But one objective argument against Markdown and in favour of Pier is that the former has no good parser and/or document model and and the latter does have both, in Pharo. That means that we can write all sorts of tools ourselves and get things finished, as was proven with the books.

There simply isn’t any definitive, unambiguous Markdown syntax (the github variant is only one version).

Ben

On 13 Nov 2013, at 19:22, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

do you really think that I insist of using pier syntax because
A- I want to lose my time
B- this is for my ego?
C- because I'm funny
D- ...

No seriously?

If you want to get an answer read the thread that yuri raised a while ago.
Because we already discussed discussed and discussed it.

I will not write any book in markdown. Now you can try and we see.

Stef

Stef, what is the advantages of writing it in Pier compared to markdown ?

Ben

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Benjamin Van Ryseghem (Pharo)

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse

On 13 Nov 2013, at 20:40, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

So read the thread that yuriy rasied last week
my sumarry
- write in pier
publish in latex, html, markdong

“markdong” ? that’s a chinese variant :P

For md, there is pandoc (http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/)

it converts a lot of format into a lot of other formats :)

- too many variation of markdown
- do not want to ask in haskell, ruby… to extend libraries

I do not get it

- markdown does not support references and other essential points for making decent books

What do you mean by "references and other essential points” ?

Ben

Stef

On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:59 PM, Benjamin <[hidden email]> wrote:

It was a real question, and it feels like you overreacted the answer …

To me, markdown or pier is a new syntax to learn so I am asking …
To me, doing Pier because you do or because you said to is no really an argument.

Then I am open to a real answer but I also see that markdown is integrated to a lot of tools (github and jekylls by examples)
and that a lot of people knows about markdown.

This was a real question, not a troll ...

Ben

On 13 Nov 2013, at 19:22, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

do you really think that I insist of using pier syntax because
A- I want to lose my time
B- this is for my ego?
C- because I'm funny
D- ...

No seriously?

If you want to get an answer read the thread that yuri raised a while ago.
Because we already discussed discussed and discussed it.

I will not write any book in markdown. Now you can try and we see.

Stef

Stef, what is the advantages of writing it in Pier compared to markdown ?

Ben

Benjamin Van Ryseghem (Pharo)

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse

On 13 Nov 2013, at 20:44, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 8:22 PM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Why not generating markdown code from pier code?
>> If the whole problem is exposure on the web. Someone has considered pdf2html or latex2html?
>
> I did => suicidal tendencies.
> The results looks like shit.
>
> I did not try pdf2html.
>
> Now pier is a compromise so that normal people can write chapter without being a latex freaks like us.
>
> Stef

That’s also the thing, md is designed in a (shitty) way so one does not have to “learn” it since it’s is “close”
to what one will write in an email

Ben

>
>
>> Maybe my question is naive, I do not know.
>>
>> On some point, i have tried to generate the roassal documentation from the Roassal Help, but it makes the maintenance loop heavy: If I want to fix something in the text, I had to edit the Help in Pharo, generating the document, compiling into .pdf. Quite heavy it was. At the end, I only worked on the .tex files.
>>
>> Alexandre
>>
>>
>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 13 Nov 2013, at 19:59, Benjamin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It was a real question, and it feels like you overreacted the answer …
>>>>
>>>> To me, markdown or pier is a new syntax to learn so I am asking …
>>>> To me, doing Pier because you do or because you said to is no really an argument.
>>>>
>>>> Then I am open to a real answer but I also see that markdown is integrated to a lot of tools (github and jekylls by examples)
>>>> and that a lot of people knows about markdown.
>>>>
>>>> This was a real question, not a troll …
>>>
>>> I like .md as well and yes, the github integration makes it compelling.
>>>
>>> But one objective argument against Markdown and in favour of Pier is that the former has no good parser and/or document model and and the latter does have both, in Pharo. That means that we can write all sorts of tools ourselves and get things finished, as was proven with the books.
>>>
>>> There simply isn’t any definitive, unambiguous Markdown syntax (the github variant is only one version).
>>>
>>>> Ben
>>>>
>>>> On 13 Nov 2013, at 19:22, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> do you really think that I insist of using pier syntax because
>>>>> A- I want to lose my time
>>>>> B- this is for my ego?
>>>>> C- because I'm funny
>>>>> D- ...
>>>>>
>>>>> No seriously?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to get an answer read the thread that yuri raised a while ago.
>>>>> Because we already discussed discussed and discussed it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will not write any book in markdown. Now you can try and we see.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stef
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stef, what is the advantages of writing it in Pier compared to markdown ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Benjamin Van Ryseghem (Pharo)

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by kilon.alios

That would be appreciated :)

Ben

On 13 Nov 2013, at 21:18, kilon alios <[hidden email]> wrote:

Stephane I think you need to sit down and write the Guidelines for Pharo Documentation, explaining the tools, the workflow, the goals, the principles and most importantly where documentation can be found. Post it on pharo website. This way you will save a lot of time from answering questions here . So next time someone asks a relevant question you only post a link to it.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Nov 13, 2013, at 8:22 PM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why not generating markdown code from pier code?
> If the whole problem is exposure on the web. Someone has considered pdf2html or latex2html?

I did => suicidal tendencies.
The results looks like shit.

I did not try pdf2html.

Now pier is a compromise so that normal people can write chapter without being a latex freaks like us.

Stef

> Maybe my question is naive, I do not know.
>
> On some point, i have tried to generate the roassal documentation from the Roassal Help, but it makes the maintenance loop heavy: If I want to fix something in the text, I had to edit the Help in Pharo, generating the document, compiling into .pdf. Quite heavy it was. At the end, I only worked on the .tex files.
>
> Alexandre
>
>
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 13 Nov 2013, at 19:59, Benjamin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> It was a real question, and it feels like you overreacted the answer …
>>>
>>> To me, markdown or pier is a new syntax to learn so I am asking …
>>> To me, doing Pier because you do or because you said to is no really an argument.
>>>
>>> Then I am open to a real answer but I also see that markdown is integrated to a lot of tools (github and jekylls by examples)
>>> and that a lot of people knows about markdown.
>>>
>>> This was a real question, not a troll …
>>
>> I like .md as well and yes, the github integration makes it compelling.
>>
>> But one objective argument against Markdown and in favour of Pier is that the former has no good parser and/or document model and and the latter does have both, in Pharo. That means that we can write all sorts of tools ourselves and get things finished, as was proven with the books.
>>
>> There simply isn’t any definitive, unambiguous Markdown syntax (the github variant is only one version).
>>
>>> Ben
>>>
>>> On 13 Nov 2013, at 19:22, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> do you really think that I insist of using pier syntax because
>>>> A- I want to lose my time
>>>> B- this is for my ego?
>>>> C- because I'm funny
>>>> D- ...
>>>>
>>>> No seriously?
>>>>
>>>> If you want to get an answer read the thread that yuri raised a while ago.
>>>> Because we already discussed discussed and discussed it.
>>>>
>>>> I will not write any book in markdown. Now you can try and we see.
>>>>
>>>> Stef
>>>>
>>>>> Stef, what is the advantages of writing it in Pier compared to markdown ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>
>
>
>

Benjamin Van Ryseghem (Pharo)

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse

On 13 Nov 2013, at 21:19, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

It would be completely silly to have class comments in MD (no matter how cool this would be) _and_ *not* be able to have Nautilus parse/render them, with active links, etc…

With Athens inside the image we will use the pier parser to generate a document tree and render it inside the image.
Now one step at a time.

There are some PEG grammar for markdown, maybe it could be reused so PP can parse it :)
then one could generate Pier format out of markdown :)

What most of you do not get is that. But I do not care about Pier format. I care about a REAL solution that can produce a REAL document tree AND that ***I*** can edit and maintain and enhance so that I can create books.

So why not extending markdown then ?

Ben

So I'm pragmatic we wrote the seaside book with pier so I took pier because I do not want to write a MD parser and building model
and reinventing the wheel. And I do not want to have to learn a new language just to make sure that I can write books.

Stef

Benjamin Van Ryseghem (Pharo)

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Sven Van Caekenberghe-2

Have a look at http://jgm.github.io/lunamark/ :)

It may be a dirty hack, that I do not know :)

Ben

On 13 Nov 2013, at 20:27, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 13 Nov 2013, at 20:22, Benjamin <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 13 Nov 2013, at 20:05, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 13 Nov 2013, at 19:59, Benjamin <[hidden email]> wrote:

It was a real question, and it feels like you overreacted the answer …

To me, markdown or pier is a new syntax to learn so I am asking …
To me, doing Pier because you do or because you said to is no really an argument.

Then I am open to a real answer but I also see that markdown is integrated to a lot of tools (github and jekylls by examples)
and that a lot of people knows about markdown.

This was a real question, not a troll …

I like .md as well and yes, the github integration makes it compelling.

But one objective argument against Markdown and in favour of Pier is that the former has no good parser and/or document model and and the latter does have both, in Pharo. That means that we can write all sorts of tools ourselves and get things finished, as was proven with the books.

There simply isn’t any definitive, unambiguous Markdown syntax (the github variant is only one version).

Ok :)
But as an end user, do you feel the difference ?

I know, but the documentation is meant to be integrated in the Pharo ecosystem.

It would be completely silly to have class comments in MD (no matter how cool this would be) _and_ *not* be able to have Nautilus parse/render them, with active links, etc…

There are some PEG grammar for markdown, maybe it could be reused so PP can parse it :)
then one could generate Pier format out of markdown :)

So indeed, that is what we need. [And what we already have for Pier].
But be sure to ask Camillo how his 2 attempts went before you get ambitious.
I look at the PP MD code and thought, I can do better, but after writing some actual code, I stopped ;-)

BTW, please point me to grammar, I never found one ! Each MD parser is one big hack.

Ben

Ben

On 13 Nov 2013, at 19:22, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

do you really think that I insist of using pier syntax because
A- I want to lose my time
B- this is for my ego?
C- because I'm funny
D- ...

No seriously?

If you want to get an answer read the thread that yuri raised a while ago.
Because we already discussed discussed and discussed it.

I will not write any book in markdown. Now you can try and we see.

Stef

Stef, what is the advantages of writing it in Pier compared to markdown ?

Ben

Nicolas Petton

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Sven Van Caekenberghe-2

Sven Van Caekenberghe writes:

> It would be completely silly to have class comments in MD (no matter
> how cool this would be) _and_ *not* be able to have Nautilus
> parse/render them, with active links, etc…

We actually do that in the new IDE of Amber :) Then we have very nicely
displayed class comments.

Nico

Stéphane Ducasse

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Benjamin Van Ryseghem (Pharo)

On Nov 14, 2013, at 1:03 AM, Benjamin <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 13 Nov 2013, at 20:40, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

So read the thread that yuriy rasied last week
my sumarry
- write in pier
publish in latex, html, markdong

“markdong” ? that’s a chinese variant :P

yes

400 × 195 - baudelet.net

vietnamese apparently

For md, there is pandoc (http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/)
it converts a lot of format into a lot of other formats :)

Yes we know. But again as I said it one million times. Markdown does not offer what is needed to write books.

I will not repeat here. And I will not hack pandoc to make it works.

- too many variation of markdown
- do not want to ask in haskell, ruby… to extend libraries

I do not get it

- do not want to **hack** in haskell, ruby… to extend libraries

- markdown does not support references and other essential points for making decent books

What do you mean by "references and other essential points” ?

I will not repeat it :)

Read the thread of yuriy.

Ben

Stef

On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:59 PM, Benjamin <[hidden email]> wrote:

It was a real question, and it feels like you overreacted the answer …

To me, markdown or pier is a new syntax to learn so I am asking …
To me, doing Pier because you do or because you said to is no really an argument.

Then I am open to a real answer but I also see that markdown is integrated to a lot of tools (github and jekylls by examples)
and that a lot of people knows about markdown.

This was a real question, not a troll ...

Ben

On 13 Nov 2013, at 19:22, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

do you really think that I insist of using pier syntax because
A- I want to lose my time
B- this is for my ego?
C- because I'm funny
D- ...

No seriously?

If you want to get an answer read the thread that yuri raised a while ago.
Because we already discussed discussed and discussed it.

I will not write any book in markdown. Now you can try and we see.

Stef

Stef, what is the advantages of writing it in Pier compared to markdown ?

Ben

Stéphane Ducasse

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Benjamin Van Ryseghem (Pharo)

>>
>>> Why not generating markdown code from pier code?
>>> If the whole problem is exposure on the web. Someone has considered pdf2html or latex2html?
>>
>> I did => suicidal tendencies.
>> The results looks like shit.
>>
>> I did not try pdf2html.
>>
>> Now pier is a compromise so that normal people can write chapter without being a latex freaks like us.
>>
>> Stef
>
> That’s also the thing, md is designed in a (shitty) way so one does not have to “learn” it since it’s is “close”
> to what one will write in an email

did you check pier syntax?
how far it is from markdown?
why is it a wiki syntax? remember wiki means fast
do you think that I did not think about it?

Ignacio already wrote 5 pages of calculator spec and I do not think that it took him more that 10 min
to get the syntax. Some details should be remembered but the main is dead simple.

Stéphane Ducasse

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Benjamin Van Ryseghem (Pharo)

>
>>> It would be completely silly to have class comments in MD (no matter how cool this would be) _and_ *not* be able to have Nautilus parse/render them, with active links, etc…
>>
>> With Athens inside the image we will use the pier parser to generate a document tree and render it inside the image.
>> Now one step at a time.
>>
>>>> There are some PEG grammar for markdown, maybe it could be reused so PP can parse it :)
>>>> then one could generate Pier format out of markdown :)
>>
>> What most of you do not get is that. But I do not care about Pier format. I care about a REAL solution that can produce a REAL document tree AND that ***I*** can edit and maintain and enhance so that I can create books.
>
> So why not extending markdown then ?

repeat after me:
- we have a working parser + model that works and we produce books with it since YEARS!
- do you want to hack in haskell or whatever language - not me :)
- what is the value of an extended markdown if it is not supported by git tools = the same as pier syntax
- we have a cool emacs mode for pier with big fonts for sections and all the rest.
- we have a pier cms with pier syntax, so if we want we can even write directly on the web.
Lukas and me wrote the seaside book like that after latex and XML.
- we have a latex exporter for pier domain
- we have a html exporter for pier domain
- we have nice visitors
so why should I hack a non standard under specified language without a decent debugger in
a language that I do not want to learn?

I prefer to concentrate on writing books and coding more important things.

Now if you want you can try your own way and create a pier exporter so that your documentation find its way
in our books. But I will not do it.

Stef

Stéphane Ducasse

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Benjamin Van Ryseghem (Pharo)

Is it because this is not in Pharo that this is better? May be this is a new trend?

Now if you have the time, you can write a pier exporter and everybody will be happy

but I will not code in lua nor haskell nor ruby nor PHP.

Personally I prefer to focus on the real parts: writing good books

Stef

Have a look at http://jgm.github.io/lunamark/ :)
It may be a dirty hack, that I do not know :)

Ben

Benjamin Van Ryseghem (Pharo)

Re: Spec new release :)

On 14 Nov 2013, at 02:25, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

Is it because this is not in Pharo that this is better? May be this is a new trend?

It’s because Sven ask me to point him the PEG grammar I saw for markdown.

And I think that Pier could benefit from a md parser

Now if you have the time, you can write a pier exporter and everybody will be happy
but I will not code in lua nor haskell nor ruby nor PHP.

Personally I prefer to focus on the real parts: writing good books

Stef

Have a look at http://jgm.github.io/lunamark/ :)
It may be a dirty hack, that I do not know :)

Ben

Stéphane Ducasse

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Nicolas Petton

Nico

when I will read a book on Amber written using the default markdown language
and that the book will be of decent quality, I will reconsider my position.
Start writing (but extend markdown first because else you will get a kind of book with no cross
ref no citation no index) so a "book" that I would not like to read and enjoy.

Stef

On Nov 14, 2013, at 1:09 AM, Nicolas Petton <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Sven Van Caekenberghe writes:
>
>> It would be completely silly to have class comments in MD (no matter
>> how cool this would be) _and_ *not* be able to have Nautilus
>> parse/render them, with active links, etc…
>
> We actually do that in the new IDE of Amber :) Then we have very nicely
> displayed class comments.
>
> Nico
>

Stéphane Ducasse

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Benjamin Van Ryseghem (Pharo)

>> Is it because this is not in Pharo that this is better? May be this is a new trend?
>
> It’s because Sven ask me to point him the PEG grammar I saw for markdown.
Ok

> And I think that Pier could benefit from a md parser

may be
to do what? so that people can edit file with pier using mardown? in addition to the pier syntax?
May be but I do not have time for that. Now if somebody needs that the pier code is MIT.

>> Now if you have the time, you can write a pier exporter and everybody will be happy
>> but I will not code in lua nor haskell nor ruby nor PHP.
>>
>> Personally I prefer to focus on the real parts: writing good books
>>
>> Stef

Nicolas Petton

Re: Spec new release :)

In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse

I'm just talking about class comment, writing a book is a totally
different story :)

Nico

Stéphane Ducasse writes:

> Nico
>
> when I will read a book on Amber written using the default markdown language
> and that the book will be of decent quality, I will reconsider my position.
> Start writing (but extend markdown first because else you will get a kind of book with no cross
> ref no citation no index) so a "book" that I would not like to read and enjoy.
>
> Stef
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 1:09 AM, Nicolas Petton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sven Van Caekenberghe writes:
>>
>>> It would be completely silly to have class comments in MD (no matter
>>> how cool this would be) _and_ *not* be able to have Nautilus
>>> parse/render them, with active links, etc…
>>
>> We actually do that in the new IDE of Amber :) Then we have very nicely
>> displayed class comments.
>>
>> Nico
>>

--
Nicolas Petton
http://nicolas-petton.fr

1234