2010/1/10 Cédrick Béler <cdrick65@gmail.com>
Hi,
Just a 2 cents thought on method extension.
Why not associating a pragma instead of using the package name prefixed by a star ?
Say there is a package named MyPackage and I override a method in String or add a new one. What I'd like is keeping the original method category name (or find an appropriate one) instead of using *mypackage. For instance:
String>>aMethod <package: MyPackage> ... ... ^result
Then, we would have to adapt monticello for that purpose. We could also use dynamic protocols to get the list of extension method by package.
What does other think ? I find it could be a good starting point to deal with packages.
That it would be a dream. I really hate the ugly hack to have to use Categories for another purpose than just organize methods regarding its intention. It is really disgusting. I don't have the knoweldege enought to say which solution I like most, but I can say that I hate as it is now and that I don't know the problems it can bring the Monticello and the compatibility. Maybe it would be easier when we have packages as real first class objects.
-- Cédrick
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project