> Comment #5 on issue 744 by
[hidden email]: SmalltalkImporter should be renamed SmalltalkExtractor
>
http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=744>
> This means that I veto this change in the main version of Moose. I gave you my reasons. Importer denotes going from an external source to the model. It's a clear meaning. And it fits in the metaphor that we have an importing step. If we introduce another term we will say, an importing/extracting step which is not nice.
But they are two steps in any languages and you know it.
I do not understand your reaction.
And the extraction term is only for Smalltalk and nobody cares about Smalltalk because it has no business value so
we could have a clear separation for Smalltalk because the importing of Smalltalk is not the same for Java, C# and …..
The SmalltalkImporterTask has nothing to do with the MSEReader or other importingTask.
> If you want to stress that it has to do with code, you can say SmalltalkCodeImporter, but to me, it really is very clear what SmalltalkImporter stands for.
But it brings fuzziness in the domain. Because this is not clear (you know for new people coming in to see
ok this is about Smalltalk creation of entity from source code and this is importing from outside).
> Now, I do not think that you should need forking, but if you insist, of course, I cannot stop you.
Indeed now there are consequences because if we fork this means that probably all the group here will use another version.
Some people suggested to me to fork Moose and I was not in favor but I will keep the option more open now.
We will discuss that with the new engineer.
Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Locked
