Hmm, maybe, but it's not what I meant, either. I meant simply this -
Squeak ClassDescription>>compile:notifying: (and various variants
thereof) are used by the development and other core modules. So they
should (at least representatively) be the subjects of SUnit tests
integrated with documentation to show how they're used.

So should the other reflective capabilities of the image.

This can lead to more people knowing what goes on in the "magical"
bowels of Squeak, and therefore, us eventually getting even nicer
interfaces to those parts, which is an important part of the appeal of
Squeak.

Daniel

John W. Sarkela" <sarkela at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Friday, February 21, 2003, at 01:06 AM, Lex Spoon wrote:
> 
> > Daniel Vainsencher <danielv at netvision.net.il> wrote:
> >> 2. The reflection protocols - everything that Browser and Inspector 
> >> use
> >> to look at and change classes and objects, including the ClassBuilder.
> >> This might be partially covered by the ANSI suite. It's important
> >> because the tools themselves are complex enough right now that it's 
> >> not
> >> obvious alway obvious how things are done.
> >>
> >
> > There is no reflection in ANSI Smalltalk.
> >
> >
> > -Lex
> >
> YES YES YES. This is perhaps the most hotly misunderstood
> aspect of the ANSI standard. It is a non-reflective declaration
> powerful enough to describe a fully reflective runtime program.
> 
> Most users of VSE never realized that they were revisioning
> non-reflective declarations of very reflective programs. This
> declarative technique is the razor's edge by which a "timeless"
> configuration of a program may be archived independently
> of the very dynamic image in which it was generated.
> 
> This is also the reason why ginsu was able to modularize
> the image with absolutely no impact on the structure or declaration
> of the core image.
> 
> But I have said that more than once in this forum.
> 
> Redundantly yours,
> 
> :-}> John