Hi Christoph,


> On Apr 12, 2021, at 12:32 PM, Christoph Thiede <christoph.thiede at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi Eliot,
> 
> I fear that changes like this will not be very durable unless tested in any
> way. At the moment, you won't even notice a new shadow unless you have
> opened a Transcript by accident when accepting a method. Should we maybe
> show a message window for shadows instead when compiled interactively,
> analogously to the warnings about superfluous temps?

I’m removing shadows, not adding new ones.  In all cars I saw eleven ing s from the compiler in the update stream and replaced shadowed temp cars by renamed temp vars.  So my changes have no semantic effect and only remove the warning.

> 
> (In a larger context, I would strongly opt for (finally) introducing a
> mechanism for linter/compiler annotations in CodeHolders. Most modern
> editors and IDEs have it, even Pharo; if Squeak does not want to get left
> behind, we should support something like this, too. It could or should be
> configurable, of course.)
> 
> LBNL, if I understand Chris correctly, "anOwner" might be a suboptimal name
> for a variable that holds Morph instances, right? :)
> 
> Best,
> Christoph
> 
> 
> 
> -----
> Carpe Squeak!
> --
> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-Dev-f45488.html
>