The Trunk: Kernel-cmm.925.mcz

Chris Muller uploaded a new version of Kernel to project The Trunk:
http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Kernel-cmm.925.mcz

==================== Summary ====================

Name: Kernel-cmm.925
Author: cmm
Time: 27 May 2015, 10:33:50.392 pm
UUID: 088a1f16-41e4-414a-aedf-2e02fc7c51ba
Ancestors: Kernel-mt.924

Fix an error in an error-handler.  Any Exception can and must be able to #printVerboseOn:, not just Errors.

=============== Diff against Kernel-mt.924 ===============

Item was removed:
- ----- Method: Error>>printVerboseOn: (in category 'printing') -----
- printVerboseOn: aStream
- aStream
- nextPutAll: 'vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ' , self description , ' vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv' ;
- cr ;
- nextPutAll: 'The time is ', DateAndTime now asString ;
- cr.
- "Allow applications to optionally print extra details without overriding a base package."
- (self respondsTo: #printDetailsOn:) ifTrue: [ self printDetailsOn: aStream ].
- aStream
- nextPutAll: self signalerContext longStack ;
- cr ;
- nextPutAll: '^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ' , self description , ' ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^' ;
- cr ;
- flush!

Item was added:
+ ----- Method: Exception>>printVerboseOn: (in category 'printing') -----
+ printVerboseOn: aStream
+ aStream
+ nextPutAll: 'vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ' , self description , ' vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv' ;
+ cr ;
+ nextPutAll: 'The time is ', DateAndTime now asString ;
+ cr.
+ "Allow applications to optionally print extra details without overriding a base package."
+ (self respondsTo: #printDetailsOn:) ifTrue: [ self printDetailsOn: aStream ].
+ aStream
+ nextPutAll: self signalerContext longStack ;
+ cr ;
+ nextPutAll: '^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ' , self description , ' ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^' ;
+ cr ;
+ flush!

While you're at it: Could you add an empty #printDetailsOn: and remove this #respondsTo: call? :)

Best,
Marcel

No, because as the comment says, I want to be able to implement my own
Exception>>#printDetailsOn: without overriding a base package.

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:15 AM, marcel.taeumel <[hidden email]> wrote:

Having to read this comment and the whole implementation to get to know about this extension point is *very* bad style. ;-) You're right, we would have to change the comment, too.

Best,
Marcel

Having to read this comment and the whole implementation to get to know about this extension point is *very* bad style. ;-) You're right, we would have to change the comment, too.

Best,
Marcel