On 4/28/2010 8:27 AM, Hannes Hirzel wrote:
> If I remember well the point of departure for Jerome was that there is
> no Beeper class anymore. And he wants to have a replacement for that.

Not exactly. The method Object>>beep: was removed. Class Beeper is still 
there. That's why my original recommendation was to implement 
Beeper>>beep: and get on with it. It seems like Jerome got a bit 
side-tracked in explorations of language :-) I would still say that the 
best way to address the problem is to implement the idiomatic "Beeper 
beep:" and leave the String protocol alone.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

>
> There is the class side of SampledSound / category 'sound library' /
> method 'playSoundNamed'.
>
> The method returns nil in case the sound is not there. And that method
> needs to be fixed.
> If I want the computer to play a sound and it does not find a sound at
> least I a 'beep' sound.
>
> This is what Jerome implemented in the String library. I do not thing
> that it belongs to that place. It belongs to SampledSound. I put in a
> proposal in the inbox. It currently gives a visual feedback (a dialog
> box) plus a beep sound if a sound is not found.
>
> However I am not pleased with this solution actually.
>
> I think we should have an easier interface for the Sound library.
>
> Something like
>
>      Sound play: 'mooh'
>
> When I look at class AbstractSound I wonder if it is still abstract?
>
> Could it be an idea for a refactoring exercise. Have AbstractSound and
> then Sound as subclass and then SampledSound. As a beginner with
> Squeak (a multimedia environment) I would expect a class 'Sound' to be
> there.
>
>
> --Hannes
>
>
>
>