[squeak-dev] Re: The Trunk: Morphic-ar.305.mcz
leves at elte.hu
Tue Jan 12 08:18:49 UTC 2010
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Andreas Raab wrote:
> Levente Uzonyi wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Andreas Raab wrote:
>>> Neither. For one thing, this method already says isScriptEditorMORPH so it
>>> obviously implies isMorph == true. (this would be different if it were
>>> isScriptEditor because there might be non-morph script editors).
>> In this case all is*Morph methods should be moved to Object from Morph.
> Let's not split hairs here. Obviously such tests should be declared on the
> smallest reasonable scope. I'll remind you that I promoted that method only
> because it was actually sent to non-morphs. But at that point it's just silly
> to write, e.g., (obj isMorph and:[obj isBarMorph and:[obj isFooBarMorph]])
> instead of obj isFooBarMorph.
>>> And it clearly can't be moved to the Etoys package - the whole purpose of
>>> the method is to make it possibly to unload Etoys and get
>>> isScriptEditorMorph == false for all other objects. This would blow up
>>> straight into your face if you'd move it to Etoys. Same goes for
>>> MorphExtension>>actorState, MorphExtension>>player etc. They all need to
>>> stay in the original packages since after unloading Etoys these messages
>>> will still be sent; they will just never return true / non-nil
>> Of course moving it to EToys would require refactoring of the code.
> Knock yourself out. I think there's far bigger fish to fry with regards to
> unloading code but if that's what you'd like to work on be my guest.
I'm not about to work on that, my list is already too long and my
knowledge about Morphic and EToys is not enough to do that properly. But
it would be good if
- we could unload packages with all related code
- Object protocol would be smaller
> - Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev