Ok I should say that I do not understand the differences and why there are
two versions of Smacc.
So I will stop maintaining the tutorial because now may be I should revert
what I wrote.
I was too stupid to do it in fact I should focus on my stuff and nothing
else.
This saddens me a lot.
We are a small community and we split ourselves into little chunks.
I do not get why there is no notion of economy and sharing in our culture.

Stef



On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > On Mar 28, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > OK
> > I loaded Smacc from github as mentioned by thierry.
> >
> > Metacello new
> >          baseline: 'SmaCC';
> >          repository: 'github://ThierryGoubier/SmaCC';
> >          load
> >
> > Are there two configurationOfSmacc?
> > May be we should only have one no?
> >
> > I have the impression that even thierry and jason working heavily with
> Smacc do not know that.
> > And we should not force them to use Moose. At least we do not have to win
> > anything with it.
>
> I did not mean to force anyone to use Moose. I just said it is already
> loaded there, in case you use it.
>
> Moose relies on the ConfigurationOfSmaCC maintained by John. Thierry has
> another repository that he created before John moved his work to Pharo.
> But, now that he does work with Pharo Moose relies on his version.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
> >
> > Stef
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com>
> wrote:
> > They come with the ConfigurationOfSmaCC which is already in the Moose
> image.
> >
> > Doru
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 27, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > where can I load the Smacc gt extension and debugger extensions?
> > >
> > > Stef
> >
> > --
> > www.tudorgirba.com
> > www.feenk.com
> >
> > "Speaking louder won't make the point worthier."
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them."
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to