[BUG]UndefinedObject(Object)>>error:

ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Thu Oct 16 20:24:11 UTC 2003


I think that you are wrong. temp shadowing in the same that class 
shadowing because they do not play the same
role. Now I think that nathanael did a really good job at explaining 
the pros and cons to each approach. So I will stop to argue because 
this leads nowhere. Now we know all the points and not having class 
shadowing  breaks
the idea of distributed development. I like the scenario of Ingo and 
its two cents were rigth.

Feel free not to believe us. One of my favorite and sharp professor was 
used to say: "if this is what you believe"

Stef


On Jeudi, oct 16, 2003, at 22:11 Europe/Zurich, Andreas Raab wrote:

>> Can it be that you guys are misunderstanding each other?
>
> Not likely ;-) I see perfectly well the arguments for shadowing but it 
> seems
> to me most people who arguing in favour of shadowing have never been 
> bitten
> by it. So I'd recommend that those people really load the Win32Fonts, 
> get
> the Symbol font and start hacking ParagraphEditor. That'll cure them 
> faster
> than anything ;-)
>
>> So, therefore I suggested to
>>
>> a) disallow interactively creating class variables that shadow globals
>> b) warn if a conflict occurs non-interactively (e.g., while loading a
>> package)
>> c) change the semantics of Squeak (i.e., make a trivial fix to the
>> compiler) so that even in the intermediate state (i.e.,
>> between the time when the conflict occurs and the time when
>> it is resolved), everything works fine.
>>
>> Could you all live with that?
>
> I don't even like the idea of referencing the shadowed globals 
> interactively
> without being explicit about what you mean. What I am arguing for is 
> simply
> the same rules that we have already in place for temps.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>
>



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list