Radical suggestions

Bert Freudenberg bert at isgnw.CS.Uni-Magdeburg.De
Thu Jul 15 11:02:17 UTC 1999


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





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list