FileContentsBrowser

Raab, Andreas Andreas.Raab at disney.com
Mon Apr 23 04:50:42 UTC 2001


Richard,

> 	> 	There is no class definition for this class
> 	
> 	This merely means that the CS or source file you are browsing
>	does not
> 	include a definition for this class.
> 	
> Yes, I understood that.  My point is that it is BADLY WORDED.
> It should, for example, say
> 
> 		This file does not include a definition for this class.

Well, why don't you change it ;-) [Mind you, since I have written the FCB
it's perfectly clear to me what the message means and I'm literally blind to
what other people might interpret into this message]

> 	It's simply because it is not a replacement for the browser.  It
> 	does *not* show you what's in the system.  But it does show you
> 	*exactly* what is in the file - no more and no less.  And if
> 	there is no definition or comment in that file then it will not
> 	trick you into thinking that there is.
> 	
> That sounds very well, but in practice, it means that I have to have a
> Browser on the class as well as a file class browser on the file.

Depends on the use. I use it almost always in a context where I want to know
if a certain CS has negative implications on what's already there or how
hard it is to integrate certain changes (such as posts from the mailing
list) - in this case it's far more useful (and faster if when you scroll
over the classes in the CS) if you see that there's *no* change to a
definition (which translates into "okay, no serious problems with this
class"). For me, it's hardly ever useful to see if the existing definition
or all the methods that do already exist in the class - the FCB doesn't show
these either. Of course, there are other uses some of which might benefit
greatly from seeing the existing definition even if not present in the CS.
So if you need this feature why don't you add it?!

Cheers,
  - Andreas





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list