Removing Object >> #name

> On 10 Nov 2015, at 11:31, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> I was following the discussion about Class>>#name and Object>>#name so I checked what happened if I removed #name from Object.
>
> 1) The system did not blew up. I could open a browser and a test runner.
>
> 2) I could use spotter, look for a class, dive in, look for methods… Same for the inspector.
>
> 3) I ran all the tests in the image.
>  - I saw some failures in GT* and Glamour. I ran them in a new image and they are not failing so maybe they are broken because of the change or some side effect of the tests?
>  - Then I saw some failures of OpenToolTest and MBGroupInfoTest that *do look related*
>
> 4) I created a Package and it worked
>
> 5) I tried to create a class and it exploded with RBBrowserEnvironment DNU #includesKey:.
>   This however explodes also in a clean image so I do not think it is related.
>
> 6) I could however create new methods...
>
> Of course integrating such a little change is still scary :). But I can propose a slice… Votes in favor? :)
>
> Guille

> Hi Guillermo et al,
>
>> On 10 Nov 2015, at 11:31, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> I was following the discussion about Class>>#name and Object>>#name so I checked what happened if I removed #name from Object.
>>
>> 1) The system did not blew up. I could open a browser and a test runner.
>>
>> 2) I could use spotter, look for a class, dive in, look for methods… Same for the inspector.
>>
>> 3) I ran all the tests in the image.
>>   - I saw some failures in GT* and Glamour. I ran them in a new image and they are not failing so maybe they are broken because of the change or some side effect of the tests?
>>   - Then I saw some failures of OpenToolTest and MBGroupInfoTest that *do look related*
>>
>> 4) I created a Package and it worked
>>
>> 5) I tried to create a class and it exploded with RBBrowserEnvironment DNU #includesKey:.
>>    This however explodes also in a clean image so I do not think it is related.
>>
>> 6) I could however create new methods...
>>
>> Of course integrating such a little change is still scary :). But I can propose a slice… Votes in favor? :)
>>
>> Guille
> Some months ago I did some more experiments, like you, please see this old thread (at the end):
>
> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/7241/Object-name-should-best-be-removed
>
> I am certainly willing to help.
>
> Sven
>

> On 10 nov 2015, at 4:05 p.m., stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Thanks you both.
> I love your attitude :)
>
> Stef
>
>
> Le 10/11/15 11:35, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit :
>> Hi Guillermo et al,
>>
>>> On 10 Nov 2015, at 11:31, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> I was following the discussion about Class>>#name and Object>>#name so I checked what happened if I removed #name from Object.
>>>
>>> 1) The system did not blew up. I could open a browser and a test runner.
>>>
>>> 2) I could use spotter, look for a class, dive in, look for methods… Same for the inspector.
>>>
>>> 3) I ran all the tests in the image.
>>>  - I saw some failures in GT* and Glamour. I ran them in a new image and they are not failing so maybe they are broken because of the change or some side effect of the tests?
>>>  - Then I saw some failures of OpenToolTest and MBGroupInfoTest that *do look related*
>>>
>>> 4) I created a Package and it worked
>>>
>>> 5) I tried to create a class and it exploded with RBBrowserEnvironment DNU #includesKey:.
>>>   This however explodes also in a clean image so I do not think it is related.
>>>
>>> 6) I could however create new methods...
>>>
>>> Of course integrating such a little change is still scary :). But I can propose a slice… Votes in favor? :)
>>>
>>> Guille
>> Some months ago I did some more experiments, like you, please see this old thread (at the end):
>>
>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/7241/Object-name-should-best-be-removed
>>
>> I am certainly willing to help.
>>
>> Sven
>>
>
>

> Ok, so now I repeated what Sven did some time ago, logging each time #name was accessed.
> As soon as I found some sender to #name, I removed it. Except from GT and versionner, as they are external projects that I could not add in my slice.
>
> So I prepared and committed a slice for issue 7241. This slice removes the method #name from object and fixes several senders.
>
> The  ones that I did not fix are the following:
>
> ====== GT and Glamour =========
>
>
> gtDisplaySummaryOn: aStream.
> self label isEmptyOrNil
> ifFalse: [ ^ aStream nextPutAll: self label ].
> self description isEmptyOrNil
> ifFalse: [ ^ aStream nextPutAll: self description ].
> aStream nextPutAll: self method name
>
>
>
>
> configurationBlockForProcessorsCreatedBy: aMethod
>
> ^ configurationBlocks at: aMethod name ifAbsent: [ self nullConfigurationBlock ]
>
>
>
> allowProcessorsFrom: aMethod configuredWith: aBlock
>
> self allowProcessorsFrom: aMethod.
> configurationBlocks at: aMethod name put: aBlock.
>
> portName
>
> ^self port name
>
>
>
> ====== Versionner =======
>
> remove
> "search if I am present in other groups and remove myself from these groups,
> then remove myself from project dependencies"
> (self project groups select: [ :aGroup | aGroup dependencies includes: name ])
> do: [ :aGroup | aGroup removeDependency: name].
> self project dependencies: (self project dependencies reject: [ :dep | dep = self]).
> self project announcer announce: (MTProjectModelChanged project: self)
>
>
> MBGroupInfo>>name
> ^ self spec name
>
>
> Guille
>
>> On 10 nov 2015, at 4:05 p.m., stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks you both.
>> I love your attitude :)
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>
>> Le 10/11/15 11:35, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit :
>>> Hi Guillermo et al,
>>>
>>>> On 10 Nov 2015, at 11:31, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey,
>>>>
>>>> I was following the discussion about Class>>#name and Object>>#name so I checked what happened if I removed #name from Object.
>>>>
>>>> 1) The system did not blew up. I could open a browser and a test runner.
>>>>
>>>> 2) I could use spotter, look for a class, dive in, look for methods… Same for the inspector.
>>>>
>>>> 3) I ran all the tests in the image.
>>>>   - I saw some failures in GT* and Glamour. I ran them in a new image and they are not failing so maybe they are broken because of the change or some side effect of the tests?
>>>>   - Then I saw some failures of OpenToolTest and MBGroupInfoTest that *do look related*
>>>>
>>>> 4) I created a Package and it worked
>>>>
>>>> 5) I tried to create a class and it exploded with RBBrowserEnvironment DNU #includesKey:.
>>>>    This however explodes also in a clean image so I do not think it is related.
>>>>
>>>> 6) I could however create new methods...
>>>>
>>>> Of course integrating such a little change is still scary :). But I can propose a slice… Votes in favor? :)
>>>>
>>>> Guille
>>> Some months ago I did some more experiments, like you, please see this old thread (at the end):
>>>
>>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/7241/Object-name-should-best-be-removed
>>>
>>> I am certainly willing to help.
>>>
>>> Sven
>>>
>>
>
>

> The  ones that I did not fix are the following:
>
> ====== GT and Glamour =========
>
>
> gtDisplaySummaryOn: aStream.
> self label isEmptyOrNil
> ifFalse: [ ^ aStream nextPutAll: self label ].
> self description isEmptyOrNil
> ifFalse: [ ^ aStream nextPutAll: self description ].
> aStream nextPutAll: self method name
>
>
>
>
> configurationBlockForProcessorsCreatedBy: aMethod
>
> ^ configurationBlocks at: aMethod name ifAbsent: [ self nullConfigurationBlock ]
>
>
>
> allowProcessorsFrom: aMethod configuredWith: aBlock
>
> self allowProcessorsFrom: aMethod.
> configurationBlocks at: aMethod name put: aBlock.
>
> portName
>
> ^self port name
>
>
>
> ====== Versionner =======
>
> remove
> "search if I am present in other groups and remove myself from these groups,
> then remove myself from project dependencies"
> (self project groups select: [ :aGroup | aGroup dependencies includes: name ])
> do: [ :aGroup | aGroup removeDependency: name].
> self project dependencies: (self project dependencies reject: [ :dep | dep = self]).
> self project announcer announce: (MTProjectModelChanged project: self)
>
>
> MBGroupInfo>>name
> ^ self spec name
>
>
> Guille
>
>> On 10 nov 2015, at 4:05 p.m., stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks you both.
>> I love your attitude :)
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>
>> Le 10/11/15 11:35, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit :
>>> Hi Guillermo et al,
>>>
>>>> On 10 Nov 2015, at 11:31, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey,
>>>>
>>>> I was following the discussion about Class>>#name and Object>>#name so I checked what happened if I removed #name from Object.
>>>>
>>>> 1) The system did not blew up. I could open a browser and a test runner.
>>>>
>>>> 2) I could use spotter, look for a class, dive in, look for methods… Same for the inspector.
>>>>
>>>> 3) I ran all the tests in the image.
>>>> - I saw some failures in GT* and Glamour. I ran them in a new image and they are not failing so maybe they are broken because of the change or some side effect of the tests?
>>>> - Then I saw some failures of OpenToolTest and MBGroupInfoTest that *do look related*
>>>>
>>>> 4) I created a Package and it worked
>>>>
>>>> 5) I tried to create a class and it exploded with RBBrowserEnvironment DNU #includesKey:.
>>>>  This however explodes also in a clean image so I do not think it is related.
>>>>
>>>> 6) I could however create new methods...
>>>>
>>>> Of course integrating such a little change is still scary :). But I can propose a slice… Votes in favor? :)
>>>>
>>>> Guille
>>> Some months ago I did some more experiments, like you, please see this old thread (at the end):
>>>
>>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/7241/Object-name-should-best-be-removed
>>>
>>> I am certainly willing to help.
>>>
>>> Sven
>>>
>>
>>
>
>