"Tests" categories

Doug Way dway at mailcan.com
Mon Aug 9 20:08:36 UTC 2004


On Monday, August 9, 2004, at 05:31 AM, Kamil Kukura wrote:

>> Yes, we decided this sometime while in 3.7a. The idea is that Tests 
>> are (or should be) a interesting form
>> of documentation: If you need an example, look at the test.
>
> Hmm, so in Package Browser (maybe better name would be Category 
> Browser) ...

Yes, Category Browser might be a better name... the word "package" in 
Squeak is way overloaded at this point.

For a while there, in the open menu, we had the "package pane browser", 
the "Package Loader", and the "Package List".  Each of these refers to 
an entirely different concept of packages.  "package pane browser" 
refers to packages as the first part of a class category name.  
"Package Loader" (recently renamed to "SqueakMap Package Loader") 
refers to SqueakMap packages.  And "Package List" refers to 
Monticello/PackageInfo packages. (maybe that menu item could be further 
clarified too, although PI packages are probably the primary definition 
of "package" in Squeak).

So yeah, we should probably rename "package pane browser" to "category 
browser", or maybe "subcategory browser".  Also, it's one of those menu 
items that's barely worth its weight, since the browser is so similar 
to a regular System Browser.  Kind of like how the Method Finder and 
Message Browser are almost the same, and should probably be 
consolidated.

> there are now items like "Text", "Exceptions" with just Tests inside. 
> To me this seems making image more messy.
>
> I was once thinking about idea to provide some kind of voting system. 
> It could be a web application or it could be integrated into system 
> browser. The idea is to provide for given class, protocol or method a 
> voting results as what is others' opinion about destiny of specific 
> item. For example, for classes/methods I was thinking about 
> classification like: "basic stone of universe", "hard life without 
> it", "too cool to miss", "goodie thing (go packaged)", "useful only 
> sometimes (go packaged)" and so on to things being deprecated, 
> obsolete, forgotten, etc. Another aspect would bear placement - it is 
> "right in place", "doesn't fit well", "inappropriate position" and so 
> on.
>
> However, now I see that squeak tend towards "append-only" system, so 
> I'm silentely forgetting above.

Not entirely true, there has been ongoing work to split off 
functionality from the base image and store it on SqueakMap. (this 
ongoing work has been proceeding slowly as of late but proceeding 
nonetheless)

- Doug




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list