[Fwd: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: The Trunk: Morphic-ar.305.mcz]

> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Andreas Raab wrote:
>
>> Levente Uzonyi wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Andreas Raab wrote:
>>>> Neither. For one thing, this method already says
>>>> isScriptEditorMORPH so it obviously implies isMorph == true. (this
>>>> would be different if it were isScriptEditor because there might be
>>>> non-morph script editors).
>>>
>>> In this case all is*Morph methods should be moved to Object from Morph.
>>
>> Let's not split hairs here. Obviously such tests should be declared
>> on the smallest reasonable scope. I'll remind you that I promoted
>> that method only because it was actually sent to non-morphs. But at
>> that point it's just silly to write, e.g., (obj isMorph and:[obj
>> isBarMorph and:[obj isFooBarMorph]]) instead of obj isFooBarMorph.
>>
>>>> And it clearly can't be moved to the Etoys package - the whole
>>>> purpose of the method is to make it possibly to unload Etoys and
>>>> get isScriptEditorMorph == false for all other objects. This would
>>>> blow up straight into your face if you'd move it to Etoys. Same
>>>> goes for MorphExtension>>actorState, MorphExtension>>player etc.
>>>> They all need to stay in the original packages since after
>>>> unloading Etoys these messages will still be sent; they will just
>>>> never return true / non-nil respectively.
>>>
>>> Of course moving it to EToys would require refactoring of the code.
>>
>> Knock yourself out. I think there's far bigger fish to fry with
>> regards to unloading code but if that's what you'd like to work on be
>> my guest.
>
> I'm not about to work on that, my list is already too long and my
> knowledge about Morphic and EToys is not enough to do that properly.
> But it would be good if
> - we could unload packages with all related code
> - Object protocol would be smaller