Hi, There already exists a GT-InspectorExtensions-XML which is already published in the GT repository.
I would prefer to qualify the extensions by the tool they refer to: GT-InspectorExtnesions-*, GT-SpotterExtensions-* etc. gtDisplayOn: should be more in the inspector, but probably some were added mostly in the spotter so they ended up in the less optimal package. Cheers, Doru On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: > I happened to need to use and XML Parser for the first time and found > inspecting the structure awkward, so I added some GTInspector extensions to > XML-Parser. This is uploaded as XML-Parser-BenComan.304 to > http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~PharoExtras/XMLParser. Could someone who > uses XML regularly check if these are reasonable? > > Now should these methods be packaged separately somehow, since they are > likely not of interest to other Smalltalk flavours? > > btw I gave them a protocol of "GT-Extensions" - but I also considered > "moldable-tools" and "tools-extensions". If there a preference? This will > likely be a common occurrence across the community, so we should try for a > consistent convention across the community for such extensions. > > btw2, I notice that #gtDisplayOn: implementors are fairly evenly split > between [GT-InspectorExtensions-Core] and [GT-SpotterExtensions-Core]. Are > they really separated like this in their use? > > cheers -ben > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
