Hi. In VW they proposed the change I forward. I think it is very cool. Mostly for newcomers or people that come from static and typed languages.
What do you think?
Cheers
Mariano
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Niall Ross <[hidden email]>Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [vwnc] Stupid Smalltalk question...
To:
[hidden email]Cc: VWNC NC <
[hidden email]>
Dear Rick,
>On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:42:05 -0700, Travis Griggs <
[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Are you sure it's not simply confirming that you want to remove the
>>method, even tho there are 174 _references_ (i.e. senders) to that
>>method?
>>
>>
>
>Thanks Travis/David.. Both of you are spot on.. I was worried based
>on the wording the browser gave me.. I think some better verbiage
>would reduce confusion for those of us that not long term
>smalltalkers.. IMHO..
>
>
1) Possible revised message:
174 senders call this or another of the 26 implementors of
#attributes
Do you want to proceed?
Yes Browse References No
More helpful? (Compare the message you get when renaming a
multiply-implemented method.)
2) I keep meaning to extend the RBDynamicRenaming utility to handle
dynamic removing. It will not happen for 7.7.1 but I may get around to
it. (Meanwhile, of course, the coverage tool can let you see whether it
is called, and if so by whom, during some test or exercise of the code.)
Yours faithfully
Niall Ross
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Locked
