On 14 April 2010 19:13, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 4/14/2010 8:57 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> On 14 April 2010 18:32, Andreas Raab<andreas.raab at gmx.de>  wrote:
>>>
>>> No solution has been brought forward to address the
>>> issue of how to deal with existing code that uses underscore assignment.
>>> As
>>> long as nobody is offering a solution to this problem, I'm not willing to
>>> give up underscore assignments. If you can't even load the code that's
>>> been
>>> written for 4.0 into 4.1 something's *seriously* wrong with your
>>> priorities.
>>>
>>> Not being able to load code *written for Squeak* into Squeak, hurts us a
>>> *lot* more than not being able to load code into Squeak that wasn't
>>> written
>>> for it.
>>>
>> Look: loading code is an import procedure, and as any import, it could
>> perform any number of conversion steps
>> starting from source and ending with a ready-to-use material,
>> including treating underscores as assignment or something else.
>
> Yes "we could", "we might perhaps" or "we ought to consider". So where is
> that code you speak of? I have been asking for it during the ealier
> discussions. The only thing I got back was hand-waiving.
>

Completely correct statement.
Now think, who will write this code, knowing that some of hand-wavers
turn into a 'only over my dead body'
after you give them a working solution. So, why wasting time on
something which will never be accepted?
I know for myself, how many of my ideas was rejected. And how many
things which i implemented never adopted
in Squeak.
So, i found that its better to keep discussing these issues over and
over again, up to the point where majority accepting the proposal,
only then its worth spending time implementing it.
A "do it, and we'll see " is not motivating enough for me to do it.

> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.