tim at rowledge.org
Sun Sep 9 04:35:29 UTC 2007
On 8-Sep-07, at 6:33 PM, Matthew Fulmer wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 05:39:08PM -0700, tim Rowledge wrote:
>> On 8-Sep-07, at 3:46 PM, Matthew Fulmer wrote:
>>> The only reason I might want code generation is to retain
>>> compatability with squeak's limited fileout capabilities. I
>>> would much rather just have the morph and leave it at that.\
>> Limited? Since you can dump any object to a file (hmm, are there any
>> problems with recursively structured object? I've never stumbled
>> across any) I'm not sure I can agree with that. Using ImageSegments
>> can be a very fast way of loading complex structures.
> I didn't know you could dump arbitrary objects to files. Thanks
> for mentioning that. I see Object>>saveOnFile now
> However, by fileout, I really meant "snapshot in a Monticello
> repository". I can easily snapshot and version code, but not
> anything else using the supported tools that I know of.
Good point. I don't know the answer to that either. I'd guess that it
wouldn't be to difficult to make MC handle binary files but it might
be harder to make sure the tools don;t go nuts; diffing binary files
is often pointless unless you decode them before the comparison. I've
cc:d Colin and perhaps he can offer some opinion?
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Oyster (n.), a person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddishisms.
More information about the UI