> Don's and the authors work on the MiscKit are exceptional. However,
> I don't have a need for all of the functionality that exists
> within misckit.a. I'm sure there are other people in the same
> boat.
This brings up something I have thought about before. I was wondering if it would be possible to break the kit apart into "levels" depending on how much it relied on other things:
Level 0) Just relies on Object, and other Level 0 classes
Level 1) Just relies on Collection classes, other Level 1 classes,
and Level 0 classes
Level 2) Relies on AppKit classes, other Level 2 classes,
and Level 1 classes (recursively)
The idea would be to have interfaces/encapsulation on "kits" rather than merely on individual objects.
The relevance of this to Robert's comments it that String and similar non-dependant classes could become part of a 'lightweight' Level 0 class. It also addresses the question (in one of the newsgroups, I think) about what portions of the MiscKit are applicable to non-NeXT platforms.
Does this sound like it would be helpful to other people? The build process could produce either "misckit[012]" or just "misckit", or both, depending on flags (that's not asking too much, is it?).
I'm not using MiscKit myself (yet - stuck in C++ :-(), so I can't say for sure if this meets other people's needs. I'm interested in it more for the "Level 2" classes, so I don't gain anything personally from it. However, it sounded like a neat idea to me, so I was curious what other people thought of it.
