obsolete code version re-imported thru squeakland (overrides?)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

obsolete code version re-imported thru squeakland (overrides?)

Nicolas Cellier
I wanted to check what's in image.
But I realized that current Squeak fallback code for Float>>timesTwoPower: is not OK.
It's the version from Etoys-Squeakland corresponding to old squeak implementation

The correct one should be that of Kernel-nice.900.mcz
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/packages/2015-February/007538.html
Fortunately it has been moved (duplicated) in-between in both subclasses, thus maybe the Squeakland one is not an override? I can't really trace what happened because it's hidden in the spur transition.
But IMO it would be preferable to implement the Smalltalk one in Float only once, and rely on ^super timesTwoPower: in case of primitive failure.

I saw some other instances of code that was fixed but reintroduced (like all the character scanner duplication). What's the strategy about it, can we touch Squeakland, or shall we refrain?



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: obsolete code version re-imported thru squeakland (overrides?)

Bert Freudenberg
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> wrote:
I wanted to check what's in image.
But I realized that current Squeak fallback code for Float>>timesTwoPower: is not OK.
It's the version from Etoys-Squeakland corresponding to old squeak implementation

The correct one should be that of Kernel-nice.900.mcz
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/packages/2015-February/007538.html
Fortunately it has been moved (duplicated) in-between in both subclasses, thus maybe the Squeakland one is not an override? I can't really trace what happened because it's hidden in the spur transition.
But IMO it would be preferable to implement the Smalltalk one in Float only once, and rely on ^super timesTwoPower: in case of primitive failure.

I saw some other instances of code that was fixed but reintroduced (like all the character scanner duplication). What's the strategy about it, can we touch Squeakland, or shall we refrain?


Touch it, absolutely :)

- Bert -