Monticello status
Stephane Ducasse
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
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
semantics.
Do you have some tests about what you have now?
Stef
Prof. Dr. Stéphane DUCASSE
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~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: http://www.squeak.org,
http://www.gnu.org/software/smalltalk/smalltalk.html
Free books for Universities at
http://www.esug.org/sponsoring/promotionProgram.html
Free Online Book at
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/WebPages/FreeBooks.html
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|