>
> On 27/02/11 19:49, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>