On 22/02/2008, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>  > On 22/02/2008, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>  >> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>  >>  > In this respect, i think, best would be to incorporate Spoon features to VM.
>  >>  > As i understand (Craig, correct me if i'm wrong), a Spoon VM changes
>  >>  > are incremental and not breaking any compatibility.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> I'm not sure which changes you mean. If it's about imprinting, I'm no
>  >>  fan of that. I don't want methods automatically transferred between
>  >>  images - I want tools that I can use in a remote image to load and edit
>  >>  code just like I do in the "main" image. With the end result being a
>  >>  well-defined set of packages that are designed to work together.
>  >>
>  >
>  > I'm about marking oops while code running, to get a part of image
>  > which required to run your code and scrap the rest.
>
>
> Yes, and that's exactly what I'm no fan of ;-) In a realistic situation
>  you'd really want to understand what is being used where - the fact that
>  a particular method hasn't been touched during a particular run of the
>  code is just as insignificant as the fact that during a debugging
>  session you might touch code that isn't even in the product you're
>  trying to design.
>

Well, there is people who wish to see such capabilities, and if Spoon
features orthogonal to your approach, then why not include them?
In this case both camps will feel suited with new VM and can use it in
one way or another.


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.