Hi Jacob,

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Jakob Reschke <forums.jakob at resfarm.de>
wrote:

> Am 02.11.2017 7:11 nachm. schrieb "Eliot Miranda" <eliot.miranda at gmail.com
> >:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel at hpi.de>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Next step would be to build a preview tool that supports add/remove steps
>> of a refactoring. For example, a "rename message" might tackle too much
>> methods. That is, there is no scoping at the moment.
>>
>
> OK.  We likely definitely want to scope by package(s), right?
>
>
>
> Unless you wanted to say "packages, not classes or categories" I do not
> think so. Mostly because projects/software is often divided into -Core and
> -Tests packages. Or think of -Examples, -Plugins, -Extensions... So I fear
> explicit input of the scope (a set of packages) will be required.
>

I think offering two scopes is adequate:
a) the entire system
b) classes and extension methods whose package name matches either a prefix
or a pattern



> Using package dependencies (like in ENVY) would be nice, but they are
> unmaintained in Monticello (often only supplied with Metacello).
>
> Oh, and my Environments bell is ringing again... ;-)
>

Remember that one can always generate more narrowly scoped refactoring by
1. performing the refactoring on some larger scope (e.g. the entire system)
2. quitting the system
3. using the changes crash recovery tool to select the desired refactorings
or by using method versions to revert any unwanted

So having a simple generally useful scope such as package or package prefix
would work for me.

_,,,^..^,,,_
best, Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20171102/84994b9d/attachment.html>