Still about methodClass [was: Condensed Sources vs. Squeak Maintainence]

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Tue Jul 25 15:19:11 UTC 2006


Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
> I could give more [boring] details if that's wanted.

Actually, if you want my attention, talk about the new source code 
subsystem ;-)

The method properties discussion is a red herring in my eyes - we have a 
functioning version today and if that needs changing or not is in the 
eye of the beholder. Personally (having done it both ways) I strongly 
prefer the current solution since it has some nice properties (like that 
all relevant attributes are reachable via direct references from the 
method and therefore garbage collection will do The Right Thing without 
additional help; that a generic copying mechanism doesn't have to know 
that some vital parts of compiled methods are stored elsewhere; that 
extensions can be done in one place rather than many) but things can 
certainly be done differently. Discussing those merits would require 
some more data points other than saying "yes, it can be done" (because I 
know it can, I have done it before ;-) and would likely mean some fairly 
subjective comparisons of what is "nicer" or "more understandable" or 
somesuch.

In light of that, I'd rather discuss an area that actually needs fixing, 
like the source code subsystem.

Cheers,
   - Andreas



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list