[squeak-dev] Can't browse Traits [was Ancient Mantis Report 1554, compiler and global vs class variables]

Frank Shearar frank.shearar at gmail.com
Mon Jul 22 06:12:18 UTC 2013


By "browse" do you mean something other than using Browser? Because I
unaware of any _serious_ Trait issues until now, other than #- not
doing the right thing in complicated compositions.

frank

On 21 July 2013 23:12, Nicolas Cellier
<nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
> So, it appears that all these are Traits, and that we currently can't browse
> Traits.
> See Trait someInstance browse...
> (In my image I have a few obsolete Traits by the way)
>
> 2013/7/21 Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com>
>>
>> Note that bindingOf: contents moved to bindingOf:environment: since
>> Environment, so the fix might have to be updated.
>> BTW when I browse implementors of bindingOf: I see many Trait>>bindingOf:
>> Is it just me?
>>
>>
>> 2013/7/21 Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> On 21 July 2013 00:41, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
>>> > Whilst trawling through ancient dusty mantis reports I found this
>>> > little fella' - http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=1554 and thought to
>>> > myself, "well now, this one will be closable because someone will surely
>>> > have modified the compiler a fair bit by now and solved this". Wrong.
>>> > Despite the fairly amazing amount of heat that the discussion released back
>>> > in 2003 (ten years ago! eeek!) it appears nothing was done at the time
>>> > beyond a proposed fix that only got into Mantis-land two years late through
>>> > Ken Causey's good offices.
>>> >
>>> > I tried out the suggested test code in a very recent (#12641) image and
>>> > 8 out of 10 test passed. Now I'm no compiler guru and don't claim to have
>>> > any special opinion on this except that it looked pretty serious back then
>>> > and probably ought to be fixed if at all possible. Unless someone has good
>>> > reasons for those two 'failing' tests to be considered unimportant, of
>>> > course.
>>>
>>> Those two tests - are they the tests that Ken says failed before
>>> loading the changeset, and work afterwards?
>>>
>>> frank
>>>
>>> > tim
>>> > --
>>> > tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>>> > There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one
>>> > works.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list