h.gedenryd at open.ac.uk
Thu May 9 15:04:08 UTC 2002
Stephen Pair wrote:
> I was just thinking that you would only need to gather up everything
> that needed to be activated, and activate it in an order that it
> wouldn't break. However, fixing superclass references in retrospect
> might be more robust and easier to implement.
The problem is that to "gather" it you file it in, you can't get a class
definition into the image without creating the class object (or doing a
*lot* of work to analyze the code before executing it).
> So, if I understand correctly, co-dependence will be allowed (maybe this
> has been covered before, I can't remember)?
The best thing would be not to allow it--clean dependencies is what you
really want--but for legacy reasons it needs to be handled to some extent.
More information about the Squeak-dev