[Newbies] Re: Method Finder puzzles

[Jerome Peace]

[Newbies] Method Finder puzzles

tjohnson at iwu.eduSat Dec 20 03:31:10 UTC 2008
>
>Hi,
>
>Could be a pointless question, but maybe an answer would teach me something about 
>syntax. 
>
>I found some things that I can type into Method Finder which show up as results, but have no 
>senders and no implementors.  These things are ~, ^, #, %, (, <>, and ** .  I understand why 
>the single-character entries could be exceptional, but the <> and ** puzzle me.
>
>Why is this?  I can type in >>>, ***, &%, or ^^ and not get them back as a result.
>
>) is in a league of its own -- it shows up as a result, and when you click on it, you get a 
>subscript out of bounds error.
>
>Maybe this is all just Method Finder magic and I should slowly step away.
>
I played with Method Finder very lightly.
Then I found that Message Names Finder was much easier to use.
5 years after that discovery I found the short cut to use it.
Selected a phrase fragment
and type Cmd-Shif-W. The Message Name Finder will appear with all the selectors containing that fragment. 
It is not as focused as Method Finder. Still, personally, I would rather make a guess at the name of a selector and take my chances with the list I get.

The Method Finder takes maintenance and updating to work. And there doesn't seem to be anyone who cares to do that.

I think there is a rule that anything with complicated dependencies in squeak (our branch) tends to break.

Consequence of too many cooks who add ingredients w/o understanding the previous makeup of the stew.

Anyway try the Message Name Finder and see if it serves.

Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace