Next steps for MCP?

Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene edgardec2001 at yahoo.com.ar
Sun May 25 12:38:35 UTC 2003


On 25/05/03 09:55, "Daniel Vainsencher" <danielv at netvision.net.il> wrote:

>> From what I've read of your snippet, it is a tool to do destructive
> removal - in the sense that stuff is removed whether it is needed or
> not. For example in this case, the *PropertyMorph stuff would be
> removed, despite the fact that it is actually called by external methods
> (which are shown to the user).
> 
> Which is a good way when you're trying to cut stuff out to get to a
> specific subset that serves you. But when you want to preserve the
> functionality (for example, Morphs should still be able to bring up
> *PropertyMorphs), but in a form that is (un)loadable, you need to
> perform manual refactorings.
> 
> SpT merely shows the paths of dependency clearly, so the human can
> decide what refactorings to do. It also tests in the same way whether
> the refactorings have made some components independently loadable.
> 
> Daniel
Daniel:

Ok. I do more research .
Yes , production of SqueakLight is still trial and error and destructive.
Very thanks for you advice.
Have you more examples for your Spaghetti tracer code ?

Cheers.
Edgar


Edgar



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list