On 05.01.2014, at 22:45, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>> On 02.01.2014, at 11:47, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Class >> #sharing: asks a user if they want to automatically create a
>>> pool dictionary. Under what conditions would you _not_ want to create
>>> the pool dictionary?
>> 
>> In case you misspelled the name. It's really much more common to create the pool first and *then* add it to a class. I've never run into that dialog.
> 
> If someone misspelled it they could just change it to what they
> wanted, couldn't they?

Apparently not, at least not in that method.

>>> And why does it create a Dictionary, not a SharedPool? (I see that "we
>>> do not fileout SharedPool type shared pools for now'", according to
>>> Class >> #fileOutPool:onFileStream:.)
>> 
>> They used to be simple dictionaries, and still can be. The code is not really wrong.
> 
> Not blowing up at least.  But is there a reason to need both cases as
> a Dictionary or a SharedPool or would it be better to decide on one or
> the other exclusively?  (in 4.6, that is)

As Tim wrote, there are some obnoxious pools in the image that are not easily converted to a static form. A SharedPool is really a holder of a limited number of constants. But e.g. TextConstants is everything but constant - every font you install creates a new entry, which would correspond to a new class variable in the SharedPool. Installing a font should not modify code, agreed? So that's why TextConstants is still a dictionary pool.

- Bert -


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4142 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140107/6c6d1d87/smime.bin