[ENH][Modules] Delta Modules [was: Another version]
Henrik.Gedenryd at lucs.lu.se
Tue Oct 9 15:14:05 UTC 2001
danielv at netvision.net.il wrote:
> Henrik Gedenryd <Henrik.Gedenryd at lucs.lu.se> wrote:
>> It did mix the implementation aspect with how DMs would be used, in the
>> manner of "here are some problems, and this is how DMs can address them".
>> The implementation difference is not strictly linked to the uses I
>> mentioned, but in practice there will be such a link: the convenience of the
>> delta representation means that class extensions probably will be put in DMs
>> 99% of the time, and so on.
> Please - lets nail this point down, because the abstractions are all
> blurred in my head.
> Do you mean that I'm *can* put extensions in Modules if I wish?
Sorry, my badly chosen example. The example could have been "the convenience
of the delta representation means that changes to existing modules probably
will be put in DMs 99% of the time", but that nothing stops you from
distributing e.g. a new RB version as a complete module instead. You can't
put extensions in a Module since they are always complete and not relative
to a base.
> If modules and deltaModules ARE equivalent, except for DMs being defined
> relatively, this means that modules can conflict, and thus it would be
> useful to be able to load but not install those, too.
Yikes! Actually, strictly DMs cannot conflict either, but only if you create
the new version by activating them "into" the base module instead of into a
copy of the base module.
But I really wish people wouldn't dive into technical subexception 31:B:4a
before having looked at the basic code. That is just the wrong way to go
More information about the Squeak-dev