Bert,

I totally agree with the custom that a method should be specified where it
'belongs'. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but my worry is not so much the
fact that methods are added to exisiting (core) classes, but more to the fact
that methods are specified in diverse location, as suggested by Christian.

However, IMHO changing core classes should not be done lightheartedly.

regards,

rob

Bert Freudenberg wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, rob van den berg wrote:
>
> > However, I don't think that it is such a good idea to be able to give
> > methods a 'package scope": a class/object should be an atomic entity;
> > everything belonging to a class/object should be defined in the same
> > place. You cannot just rip out parts of an object!
>
> But it's common Smalltalk coding style to put a method into the object
> where it fits best, where it "belongs". Even if this means adding methods
> to core classes (changing existing methods is a different matter). The
> current change sorter does a good job supporting this.
>
> <slightly offtopic>
> Georg Heeg's ApplicationManager for VW marries a Browser with a Change
> Sorter. It's like coding in the Change Sorter window ... Anyone adapting
> this in Squeak?
> </offtopic>
>
> > Apart from the philosophical implications, it would not like to do
> > maintain software written in that way!
>
> It really depends on the code managing scheme you're using. Without one,
> you're completely right. But it really reduces your expressiveness if
> you're not allowed to touch system classes.
>
>   /bert

--
-_-__----__----___-----____---__-_-_-_____--___--
rob van den berg rvdberg at best.ms.philips.com
+31 40 27 62787  Philips Medical Systems, Netherlands