On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:


> In that case class renaming will have to be reviewed. If I have an
> environment E with a class C, but I've imported the environment IE, which
> also has a class C, and the C from IE shadows the C from E, then either we
> shouldn't allow renaming C from E, or we should change the renaming code to
> not modify references in E in this case.
>

Yeah. That's actually a special case of the more general problem of adding
or removing bindings during development. If you removed C from IE, then
suddenly the C in E becomes visible, and methods compiled in E should be
rebound. It's something that should be handled at the tools level rather
than down in the guts of Environment. Per Tim's suggestion, we can throw
notifications when this happens, and leave it up to the tools, load-script
or whatever to deal with them.

One way we might handle it at the tools level is to have a conflict
browser. It would show names which have more than one binding in a given
environment, and the classes/globals they could be bound to. There would be
commands for choosing which one to expose to your environment, and would
automatically rejigger the imports to make that happen.

Similarly, the "references to it" browser should pay attention to the
actual value being bound, rather than name it's bound to, or the actual
binding in the CompiledMethod.

Colin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20131230/78ce8be6/attachment.htm