Hi all, I know we are in feature freeze, but that won't stop me from having {fun with, new ideas for} Squeak :-)
So please have a look at the following mini-changeset. It implements #tempNamed: and #tempNamed:put: on Context, which I personally find quite useful when debugging and working with Context objects.
Print it:
thisContext sender tempNamed: #value put: 42
:-)
Feedback welcome as always!
Best,
Christoph
Hi all,
please forgive me for pushing this proposal again after 13 months :-)
Three questions here for everyone to answer:
1. What do you think about the proposal in general? Is it worth merging it into the Trunk? (Personally, I like to use it nearly every day ...) 2. If you have no objections, what keeps us from merging it? :-) 3. Naming battle: #tempNamed:[put:] vs #tempVarNamed:[put:]?
Side note: If we get this into Trunk, we can also use it in Compiler to produce more comprehensible #DoItIn: methods, for instance, "(ThisContext tempNamed: 'failBlock') value" instead of "(ThisContext namedTempAt: 2) value" - provided that sources are available.
Best, Christoph
----- Carpe Squeak! -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-Dev-f45488.html
Hi Christoph,
I have no objection. I'd like it if Context>>tempNamed:[put:] were in *Tools-Debugger-accessing rather than accessing. But other than that it looks good to me.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 8:40 AM Christoph Thiede < christoph.thiede@student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> wrote:
Hi all,
please forgive me for pushing this proposal again after 13 months :-)
Three questions here for everyone to answer:
- What do you think about the proposal in general? Is it worth merging it
into the Trunk? (Personally, I like to use it nearly every day ...) 2. If you have no objections, what keeps us from merging it? :-) 3. Naming battle: #tempNamed:[put:] vs #tempVarNamed:[put:]?
Side note: If we get this into Trunk, we can also use it in Compiler to produce more comprehensible #DoItIn: methods, for instance, "(ThisContext tempNamed: 'failBlock') value" instead of "(ThisContext namedTempAt: 2) value" - provided that sources are available.
Best, Christoph
Carpe Squeak!
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-Dev-f45488.html
Merged via Tools-ct.1247. :-)
--- Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk
On 2021-02-01T10:12:23-08:00, eliot.miranda@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Christoph,
I have no objection. I'd like it if Context>>tempNamed:[put:] were in *Tools-Debugger-accessing rather than accessing. But other than that it looks good to me.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 8:40 AM Christoph Thiede < christoph.thiede at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> wrote:
Hi all,
please forgive me for pushing this proposal again after 13 months :-)
Three questions here for everyone to answer:
- What do you think about the proposal in general? Is it worth merging it
into the Trunk? (Personally, I like to use it nearly every day ...) 2. If you have no objections, what keeps us from merging it? :-) 3. Naming battle: #tempNamed:[put:] vs #tempVarNamed:[put:]?
Side note: If we get this into Trunk, we can also use it in Compiler to produce more comprehensible #DoItIn: methods, for instance, "(ThisContext tempNamed: 'failBlock') value" instead of "(ThisContext namedTempAt: 2) value" - provided that sources are available.
Best, Christoph
Carpe Squeak!
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-Dev-f45488.html
-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Christoph Thiede -
christoph.thiede＠student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de
-
Eliot Miranda -
Thiede, Christoph