[squeak-dev] Environments question
colin at wiresong.com
Wed Apr 9 02:18:00 UTC 2014
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you're starting your app from scratch, it's less of an issue. :-)
> Wow, that is surprising. I always thought of Environments as the tool
> to _save_ me from having to use the Rewrite tool. I also didn't
> realize that the source codebase needs to be kept in-sync with the
> Environment declarations. Wouldn't it be better to let code remain
> unaware of Environments?
Indeed! Having code be unaware of Environments was one of the primary
design goals. It should be the other way around: tailor the environment to
the needs of the codebase. If you have an app that refers to the prefixed
names already, just load it into an environment that doesn't strip them
off. Or heck, keep loading it into the default environment, along with
Magma and ignore environments completely.
The only reason to change your code is because you want to use different
(prettier?) names. In that case, do it on your own terms, with whatever
naming conventions or development tools you want.
The point of all this is to decouple the declarations of classes from their
references, and as a result, remove the need for the community to
coordinate the naming of classes. You, as the developer of Magma can use
whatever names make sense in the context of developing Magma, and I, as the
developer of MyApp, can use whatever names make sense in that context.
Regardless what choices we make, it should be possible to set up an
environment that lets MyApp use Magma without either of us having to change
our code to make it work.
Does that make sense?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev