How about tagging each legitimate unsent method with a pragma?<div><br></div><div>e.g.</div><div><br></div><div>myUnsentMethod</div><div> <unsentByDesign></div><div> ^42</div><div><br></div><div>You can easily see all of them by using senders of #unsentByDesign (I can't spell "l<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">egitamately"...), the tags are close to the method being tagged rather than elsewhere and you don't have to worry about packaging boundaries.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>-david</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:edgardec2001@yahoo.com.ar" target="_blank">edgardec2001@yahoo.com.ar</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
<br>
El 2/22/08 11:01 PM, "Jerome Peace" <<a href="mailto:peace_the_dreamer@yahoo.com" target="_blank">peace_the_dreamer@yahoo.com</a>> escribió:<br>
<br>
> Cleaning up lava code and unsent messages.<br>
><br>
> Hi all,<br>
><br>
> This was an after thought from my previous post. It<br>
> deserved its own topic.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Lava code is code left over from historical times<br>
> which has no use in the current image and yet no one<br>
> is willing to take responsiblity for removing it.<br>
><br>
> For the record squeak has historically had about one<br>
> sixth of its messages as unsent methods. Some of<br>
> which is lava code others of which are examples,<br>
> probes, utilities and tests.<br>
><br>
> It would be nice to clean things up so there are no<br>
> unsent messages. This could be done simply by creating<br>
> a (pseudo-recursive) message<br>
> #legitamatelyUnsentMethods (one method say for each<br>
> class.) That sends for any legitimate examples, etc.<br>
> Then anything that shows up as unsent would be<br>
> illegitamate and removeable.<br>
><br>
>> From time to time you would look at the implementors<br>
> of the legitamatelyUnsentMethods to clean out what no<br>
> longer belongs.<br>
> a legitamatelyUnsentMethods method would be packagable<br>
> if care were take that it mentions only the unsent<br>
> methods of that package.<br>
><br>
> My proposal is that package maintainers should take<br>
> the responsibility for doing this in their own<br>
> packages and the release team should reject any code<br>
> that contains unsent messages. An Sunit test could be<br>
> provided to check.<br>
><br>
> I am also hoping to recruit those who would be willing<br>
> to sort out the unsent messages in core packages and<br>
> either write legitamatelyUnsentMethods methods for<br>
> them or flag them as lava code for removal. It is a<br>
> good way to gain an insight into a lot of squeak code<br>
> while helping the community.<br>
><br>
> If this task appeals to you please start it by<br>
> planting a seed on mantis.<br>
><br>
> Yours in service and curiosity, --Jeorme Peace<br>
><br>
><br>
As part of previous Release Team I support Jerome.<br>
Also reminds he (and all) Pavel have less unimplemented in his works, so<br>
some could be learn and moved to current release.<br>
<br>
Because we have one ... Or not ?<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Edgar<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>
</div>