ash_logan a écrit :
> 
> Jerome Peace wrote:
>> Cleaning up lava code and unsent messages.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> It would be nice to clean things up so there are no
>> unsent messages. This could be done simply by creating
>> a (pseudo-recursive) message
>> #legitamatelyUnsentMethods (one method say for each
>> class.) That sends for any legitimate examples, etc.
>> Then anything that shows up as unsent would be
>> illegitamate and removeable.
>>
> 
> Would something like #legitimatelyUnsentMessages be preferable to using
> Object>>nominallyUnsent? The comment on that method describes it as a
> mechanism for marking unsent methods which are legitimate and should not be
> removed.
> 
> 

If a message is part of a useful unused API, the best thing is to write 
a SUnit TestCase as a specification and example of use.

But who decides about usefullness?

Another possibility is to scan SqueakSource and/or other third party 
code repository to assert use...


> 
>> I am also hoping to recruit those who would be willing
>> to sort out the unsent messages in core packages and
>> either write legitamatelyUnsentMethods methods for
>> them or flag them as lava code for removal. It is a
>> good way to gain an insight into a lot of squeak code
>> while helping the community.
>>
>> If this task appeals to you please start it by
>> planting a seed on mantis.
>>
>> Yours in service and curiosity, --Jeorme Peace
>>
> 
> I'd be interested in helping with this--what kind of seed on Mantis were you
> looking for--a specific bug report for a particular unsent message to start
> with, or something more general? Also, which image version would you
> recommend starting with--3.9, 3.10,...?
> 
> --Ash

I would start from lattest, and post one entry per message, or 
eventually group of messages if they are in the same chain.

Atomic changes are more easily incorporated in images.

Nicolas