Peter van Rooijen wrote:
> "Andy Bower" <
[hidden email]> wrote
> > Why is it necesary to explicitly declare these dependencies (except of
> > course to satisfy the static typing in the Java compiler). It just seems
> > like more typing to me.
>
> While I agree with most of your comments, this type of prerequisite
> detection does not guarantee that all prerequisites are in fact found. An
> additional way of explicitly specifying dependencies is required.
In Dolphin if I create a package called 'My package'
into which I add the class MyClass, and then refer to the
class RegEdit in a method of MyClass, the package containing
RegEdit will be listed as a pre-requisite of 'My package'.
This is a great feature, but not available in most Smalltalks (!?)
Now if there was a button to "File out the package and its
pre-requisites" I could create a fileout containing everything
needed by MyClass.
I'm not sure how well this works in practice, in Dolphin
or in other Smalltalks ?
Anyway I see your point, that explicit declarations
of dependencies are not needed, if they can be inferred
automatically by the system.
But I'd be curious to know if there are dependencies
that could not be found this way (by looking at the
references to globals in your source).
Thanks
-Panu Viljamaa
Locked
