[V3dot10] needed tool

[Göran Krampe]

Hi!

> On 2007 January 25 05:32, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> Thanks. Back to Squeak for a sec, because all code (class, method) is now
> separated to belong to exactly one Package, would it be possible (and
> let's
> assume first we are strongly typed in Squeak, so we know the receiver
> always), to write a program which,  by looking at senders and

Mmm, just nitpicking but Squeak is strongly typed, it just isn't
statically typed. I know the terms are a bit vague in definition though.

> implementors,
> would generate a "package dependency graph"? Am I missing something
> substantial (I am sure I am :) ).
>
> Thanks Milan

As most of the time someone has already "been there and done that":

    http://map.squeak.org/packagebyname/mudpie

Not sure though if MudPie actually analyzes senders/implementors, Daniel
can surely describe it more (and you should be able to find plenty in
squeak-dev archives).

regards, Göran

PS. I even toyed with the idea of just using global references analysis as
a way to figure out dependencies in SM. It wouldn't surprise me if that
would catch 90% of them, since most packages use unique class names and
most users of a package needs to reference at least some of the classes in
order to "use" it.