On 02.07.2018, at 15:26, Levente Uzonyi leves@caesar.elte.hu wrote:
+1, but the configuration has to be updated first to load the correct versions.
ok.. can you elaborate?
Levente
On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, H. Hirzel wrote:
Proposal
Take the result of this discussion
Installer ensureRecentMetacello. Metacello new configuration: 'RefactoringTools'; load.
and put it into the Squeak help file subject 'Extending the system' thus replacing the Omnibrowser script.
--Hannes
On 5/11/18, Tobias Pape Das.Linux@gmx.de wrote:
On 10.05.2018, at 18:41, Chris Muller asqueaker@gmail.com wrote:
... and... how to get Metacello please?
Installer ensureRecentMetacello
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Tobias Pape Das.Linux@gmx.de wrote:
Hi
On 10.05.2018, at 09:19, H. Hirzel hannes.hirzel@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
Following up on this thread.
Where do I get the latest version of the RefactoringTools updated for the most recent trunk version?
There are some SqueakMap entries but they are outdated.
This
http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/831
seems to give recent information as well.
This is the most recent info.
I short, if you have Metacello,
Metacello new configuration: 'RefactoringTools'; load.
That's about it. Marcel and Me will keep the Config up to date. We have not made any SqueakMap entries.
Best regards -Tobias
--Hannes
On 11/3/17, Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Jacob, > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Jakob Reschke > forums.jakob@resfarm.de > wrote: > >> Am 02.11.2017 7:11 nachm. schrieb "Eliot Miranda" >> <eliot.miranda@gmail.com >>> : >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Marcel Taeumel marcel.taeumel@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 >