Filing in

Andrew P. Black black at
Mon Sep 25 21:15:53 UTC 2000

At 13:45 +0200 2000.9.24, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

>How about implementing methodsFor:stamp: in UndefinedObject which prints a
>warning to the Transcript, but then reads the chunks so file-in can
>proceed? It could well be that, if you don't have that class, you don't
>actually need it.
>Optionally, the returned ClassCategoryReader could even store the methods
>in a special "failed-to-fileIn" change set ...

I don' think that "UndefinedObject" should have such methods, but how 
about creating a subclass of UndefinedObject, UndefinedClass, that is 
used as the binding for undefined classes created during the file-in 
process, and which defines methodsFor:stamp: and whatever else?

I agree that the change set should reflect the missing class somehow, 
but I don't know enough about the change set mechanism to see how to 
do this.

At 23:21 +0200 2000.9.23, Karl Ramberg wrote:
>most stuff like this is in the update stream so issuing a question if
>you want to update beyond the current change set with all the test pilot
>risks could be useful.

I'm not sure that I follow you, Karl.  Are you saying that there are 
new features in 2.9 that already do what I'm asking for (dependencies 
in change sets)?

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list