On Feb 28, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Feb 28, 2013, at 2:07 PM, "Sean P. DeNigris" <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:
Marcus Denker-4 wrote
(We really need to clean up the MethodFinder, it references a lot of crap).
I changed Issue 7619 to "Cleanup MethodFinder". Would pragmas be useful here?
I don't know. The small fix we can do immediately. Cleaning MethodFinder needs serious thought and work, so if that is the issue where will be no progress for a while.
Let's clean the trivial thing *now* (that is, when 3.0 is started), and add a second issue for the MethodFinder.
As for it: it uses positive tagging. "It is ok to run this method as there are no side effects". Do you want a pragma in *every* method? I don't.
For things like this we need a way to associate meta data with methods that is a bit less intrusive, yet stored in a way that it is not lost⦠And maybe it should be part of MethodFinder, not part of the method itself.
If possible it should abstract away from MethodFinder and encode something about side-effects⦠Or one could have some form of sandboxed secure environment to run stuff and it's not a problem if there are side effects. It's all not easy⦠doing MethodFinder right is very hard. Up to the point that the trivial thing there is now is the actually the sweet spot? Of course the code is horrible, absolutely horrible⦠I even removed it in the development phase of 1.0 once, because it is just ugly and referencing so many symbols⦠but it is a fun demo. Now how can one implement that fun demo "For real"? Having the info that a method can be called safely actually could be interesting for other things, e.g. random testing. http://code.google.com/p/yeti-test/ Marcus