About Smalltalk at: .... ifAbsent:/present:
stéphane ducasse
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Mon Nov 29 20:25:27 UTC 2004
Hi guys
this afternoon we spent one hour with marcus looking at all the senders
of
at:ifPresent/ifAbsent: by looking at all the references to Smalltalk
(far too much again but we will fix that soon).
It occurred to us that there is something strange because there are a
lot of recurrent code.
It seems that:
- first it would be better to let the compiler compiles method with
reference to classes that are not in the system and let the system
complain at execution tim
(marcus suggestion and he can explain that much better than me).
- second, it occurred to us that packages are missing in some cases
because having a dependency mechanism
(I'm not sure that it is the solution) would make sure that the code
needing to be invoked is present in the image by the structural
dependency between packages or registration where optional code can be
declared
We would really appreciate to get you open a browser, look at the code
(clean if you identify some dead code, ugly methods ;)) and share with
us your impressions. And what are the solutions you see, because it
seems to us that there are far too much use of this idiom.
Stef
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|