[squeak-dev] Browser menu interface to refactorings

H. Hirzel hannes.hirzel at gmail.com
Mon Jul 2 08:41:07 UTC 2018


Proposal

Take the result of this discussion

    Installer ensureRecentMetacello.
    Metacello new
                configuration: 'RefactoringTools';
                load.


and put it into the Squeak help file subject 'Extending the system'
thus replacing the Omnibrowser script.

--Hannes



On 5/11/18, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> On 10.05.2018, at 18:41, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ... and... how to get Metacello please?
>>
>
> Installer ensureRecentMetacello
>
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>>> On 10.05.2018, at 09:19, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> Following up on this thread.
>>>>
>>>> Where do I get the latest version of the RefactoringTools updated for
>>>> the most recent trunk version?
>>>>
>>>> There are some SqueakMap entries but they are outdated.
>>>>
>>>> This
>>>>
>>>>    http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/831
>>>>
>>>> seems to give recent information as well.
>>>
>>> This is the most recent info.
>>>
>>> I short, if you have Metacello,
>>>
>>>        Metacello new
>>>                configuration: 'RefactoringTools';
>>>                load.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's about it.
>>> Marcel and Me will keep the Config up to date.
>>> We have not made any SqueakMap entries.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>        -Tobias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Hannes
>>>>
>>>> On 11/3/17, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jacob,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Jakob Reschke
>>>>> <forums.jakob at resfarm.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 02.11.2017 7:11 nachm. schrieb "Eliot Miranda"
>>>>>> <eliot.miranda at gmail.com
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel at hpi.de>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Next step would be to build a preview tool that supports add/remove
>>>>>>> steps
>>>>>>> of a refactoring. For example, a "rename message" might tackle too
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> methods. That is, there is no scoping at the moment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK.  We likely definitely want to scope by package(s), right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless you wanted to say "packages, not classes or categories" I do
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> think so. Mostly because projects/software is often divided into -Core
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> -Tests packages. Or think of -Examples, -Plugins, -Extensions... So I
>>>>>> fear
>>>>>> explicit input of the scope (a set of packages) will be required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think offering two scopes is adequate:
>>>>> a) the entire system
>>>>> b) classes and extension methods whose package name matches either a
>>>>> prefix
>>>>> or a pattern
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Using package dependencies (like in ENVY) would be nice, but they are
>>>>>> unmaintained in Monticello (often only supplied with Metacello).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, and my Environments bell is ringing again... ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember that one can always generate more narrowly scoped refactoring
>>>>> by
>>>>> 1. performing the refactoring on some larger scope (e.g. the entire
>>>>> system)
>>>>> 2. quitting the system
>>>>> 3. using the changes crash recovery tool to select the desired
>>>>> refactorings
>>>>> or by using method versions to revert any unwanted
>>>>>
>>>>> So having a simple generally useful scope such as package or package
>>>>> prefix
>>>>> would work for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> _,,,^..^,,,_
>>>>> best, Eliot
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list