Monticello status

Stephane Ducasse ducasse at
Mon Apr 7 08:20:38 UTC 2003

Hi avi

> No, I don't either.  And, in fact, the current Monticello file format 
> is
> extremely similar, but uses #storeOn: strings instead, like this:
> MCClassDeclaration
>   name: #Foo
>   superClassName: #Object
>   category: '...'
>   instVarNames: #('x' 'y')
>   comment: ''!
> MCMethodDeclaration
>   className: #Foo
>   selector: #fullBounds
>   category: 'accessing'
>   timeStamp: '...'
>   source: 'fullBounds
>  ^ bounds'!
> Is that the kind of thing you think would be useful?

I think that this is really similar, the key question is what is the 
granularity we
want. For example should we have instance variable object.

We should also be able to annotate any entity with information that has 
not been upfront thought of. So having a dictionary where not 
predefined properties are stored
is good.

I think that a good distinction between properties and attributes of an 
entity is that an attribute represents information that is crucial 
while properties are not semantical information. But this is open to 
discussion because category are important even if they have no 

Do you have some tests about what you have now?


Prof. Dr. Stéphane DUCASSE
  "if you knew today was your last day on earth, what would you do 
different? ...  especially if,
  by doing something different, today might not be your last day on 
earth" Calvin&Hobbes

"The best way to predict the future is to invent it..." Alan Kay.

Open Source Smalltalks:,
Free books for Universities at
Free Online Book at

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list