Lukas Renggli wrote:
It doesn't depend upon that compiler hack. That hack provides the ability to put textual data in as an appendix to a method. It is an entirely independent facility that could be perhaps better included as a trait for those that want it.
The version I found in the latest Pharo-Dev images has the compiler hack loaded and depends on it (or the package definitions).
The package definitions do not depend on it, it allows the compiler to ignore code after 6 quote marks. myMethod ^ self """""" Some text here as documentation. Bob will also use this facility, because it provides a place to put scripts verbatim without having to escape quotes. Again you dont have to use it.
I don't think it is fair to use code critics as an argument.
You can't deny that references to variables and classes that do not exist in the system are not a serious bug.
Yes I can, because plainly it hasnt effected use for while. If the tests run then its not a serious bug. These sot of artifacts are unwanted side effects in a rapidly evolving code base, they are not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
To me it appears that you have developed all of these tools for your own use.
Code Critics is part of the refactoring browser by Don Roberts and John Brant.
The refactoring browser is one of the most amazing pieces of Smalltalk code I have ever seen. I am maintaining the code-base in Pharo (and
Well I never liked it, when I used it last I only had a 700Mhz machine to work on, it was slow, buggy, menu items I used frequently were missing. In short it was impossible to actually use.
previously in Squeak), because it makes me much more productive in my daily work. Code critics provides a huge set of high quality tests for free that can quickly point out flaws in code. It is not always correct, but it is usually very good to find the problematic parts of a system ok
Keith