Yes I have plans to do that (and partly done that using visualworks), 
so that's one of the things
I'd like to finish soon. I'd like to pair it with BrowseUnit, to have 
another reason to convince
people to use unit tests ;-).

Unfortunately I can't guarantee a release date for that, having quite a 
lot of work to do right now
in my new university (the departement of informatics being literally 
brand new, there are a lots
of courses to prepare ...).

In the meantime my current completion package is a little smarter than 
Squeak's default one.

Cheers,
     Romain

On Oct 18, 2004, at 9:59 AM, stéphane ducasse wrote:

> Andreas
>
> I agree :) (just a remark did you try the completion package of 
> romain, romain was planning to use MW to collect type information)
> Because we could do that too, have a big development image that record 
> everywhere we passed, all the methods that have been executed with 
> their type (this would be a concrete type engine :))
>
> Stef
>
> On 18 oct. 04, at 06:46, Andreas Raab wrote:
>
>> The more interesting question is "what do they buy us" because that 
>> is precisely the question about what I'd expect from a type system. 
>> And the answer is as simple as anything: What I *really* want a type 
>> system for, is auto-completion. Because that's where the biggest 
>> productivity value is - if you can type aMorph add<CMD-Q> and instead 
>> of the list of hundreds and hundreds of completely irrelevant 
>> messages get the ones that matter. Other than that I think it is nice 
>> to be able to have consistency checks and be able to see places that 
>> need to be fixed right away (and incidentally, unit tests might even 
>> be used to verify that the proclaimed types match the actual ones). 
>> And that's about it. There is nothing about code quality, there is 
>> nothing about speed. It's all about productivity.
>
>