On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, H. Hirzel wrote:
Has this been fixed in the meantime so that the Omnibrowser load
As far as I know, there has been no new Metacello configuration published, so no.
script may be replaced with the Refactoring Engine load script in the workspace which opens after choosing 'Help' / 'Extending the system'?
It should be replaced anyway, since OB will probably not load into the Trunk.
Levente
--Hannes
On 7/4/18, Levente Uzonyi leves@caesar.elte.hu wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2018, Tobias Pape wrote:
On 02.07.2018, at 15:26, Levente Uzonyi leves@caesar.elte.hu wrote:
+1, but the configuration has to be updated first to load the correct versions.
ok.. can you elaborate?
If you evaluate the proposed snippet in a Trunk image, you'll find that the loaded Refactoring Engine code sends deprecated methods and there is no support for the new class formats introduced by Spur.
Levente
Levente
On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, H. Hirzel wrote:
Proposal
Take the result of this discussion
Installer ensureRecentMetacello. Metacello new configuration: 'RefactoringTools'; load.
and put it into the Squeak help file subject 'Extending the system' thus replacing the Omnibrowser script.
--Hannes
On 5/11/18, Tobias Pape Das.Linux@gmx.de wrote:
> On 10.05.2018, at 18:41, Chris Muller asqueaker@gmail.com wrote: > > ... and... how to get Metacello please? >
Installer ensureRecentMetacello
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Tobias Pape Das.Linux@gmx.de wrote: >> Hi >> >>> On 10.05.2018, at 09:19, H. Hirzel hannes.hirzel@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> Hello >>> >>> Following up on this thread. >>> >>> Where do I get the latest version of the RefactoringTools updated >>> for >>> the most recent trunk version? >>> >>> There are some SqueakMap entries but they are outdated. >>> >>> This >>> >>> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/831 >>> >>> seems to give recent information as well. >> >> This is the most recent info. >> >> I short, if you have Metacello, >> >> Metacello new >> configuration: 'RefactoringTools'; >> load. >> >> >> That's about it. >> Marcel and Me will keep the Config up to date. >> We have not made any SqueakMap entries. >> >> Best regards >> -Tobias >> >> >> >>> >>> --Hannes >>> >>> On 11/3/17, Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Hi Jacob, >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Jakob Reschke >>>> forums.jakob@resfarm.de >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Am 02.11.2017 7:11 nachm. schrieb "Eliot Miranda" >>>>> <eliot.miranda@gmail.com >>>>>> : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Marcel Taeumel >>>>> marcel.taeumel@hpi.de >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Next step would be to build a preview tool that supports >>>>>> add/remove >>>>>> steps >>>>>> of a refactoring. For example, a "rename message" might tackle >>>>>> too >>>>>> much >>>>>> methods. That is, there is no scoping at the moment. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK. We likely definitely want to scope by package(s), right? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unless you wanted to say "packages, not classes or categories" I >>>>> do >>>>> not >>>>> think so. Mostly because projects/software is often divided into >>>>> -Core >>>>> and >>>>> -Tests packages. Or think of -Examples, -Plugins, -Extensions... >>>>> So I >>>>> fear >>>>> explicit input of the scope (a set of packages) will be required. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think offering two scopes is adequate: >>>> a) the entire system >>>> b) classes and extension methods whose package name matches either >>>> a >>>> prefix >>>> or a pattern >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Using package dependencies (like in ENVY) would be nice, but they >>>>> are >>>>> unmaintained in Monticello (often only supplied with Metacello). >>>>> >>>>> Oh, and my Environments bell is ringing again... ;-) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Remember that one can always generate more narrowly scoped >>>> refactoring >>>> by >>>> 1. performing the refactoring on some larger scope (e.g. the entire >>>> system) >>>> 2. quitting the system >>>> 3. using the changes crash recovery tool to select the desired >>>> refactorings >>>> or by using method versions to revert any unwanted >>>> >>>> So having a simple generally useful scope such as package or >>>> package >>>> prefix >>>> would work for me. >>>> >>>> _,,,^..^,,,_ >>>> best, Eliot >>>> >>> >> >> >