>
>
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi
>
>     why can we put comment in class comment?
>     For example I worked on fixing 1.2 and now I want to execute the
>     configurationOfPharo and no magic invocation....
>     JUST A FUCKING EMPTY class comment as usual.
>
>
>     So again I feel like an idiot and I'm trying in the dark. You have
>     NOT A SINGLE REASON NOT TO PUT COMMENT!
>     One of these days I will hack the system to break the load when a
>     class as no comment.
>
>
> I was the original author of such class. And yes, I don't write class
> comments. I am not use too, usually because:
>
> - I almost don't find it use
> - The browser doesn't help me to see class comments
> - Who can guess that under a '?' there are class comments? I discovered
> that YEARS after I was already using Smalltalk
> - I prefer writting/reading a TestCase for such class (I know it is not
> the same as class comments, but it helps).
> - I prefer looking at senders/references to such class
> - When class comments are long, the browser is FUCKING slow to write
>
> Even more, in this case, what would you write for example?
> ConfigurationOf* are just Metacello Configurations. What would you need
> to know about that despite of Metacello?  If you know Metacello, you
> should know how to query the configuration and get all the things you
> want, like groups, packages, etc
>
>
>     So now after randomly trying.....I get a nice DNU.
>
>
> But do you think that could be fixed just because of having class comments?
>
>     Apparently my time is not worth anything....
>
>     So if you want to see if my fix works. Give a try I will not and if
>     what I did break, may be I will have a look or may be not
>     because no time for that after.
>
>
>     And BTW do not put any comment, it feels much cooler that way.
>
>     Stef
>
>
>