Sorry for delay, I was taken by some other business :) I fixed the bug you reported: check new version. On 7 août 2014, at 16:42, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:
camille teruel wrote
It's because I don't want users to have to know RB pattern syntax and also because I plan to not depend on the rewriter in future versions.
Ah I see. RB is powerful and well-known. While easy to replace for simple cases, I wonder if you might be forced to either limit that power or reinvent the wheel... Why not just rely on RB, which was designed for this and battle hardened over many years?
There are some problems with RB rewriter in some cases. For example it's hard to rewrite the sender of one message inside a cascaded messages because it entails changing some surrounding nodes to be a correct transformation. There are other cases like that that don't do what one expects. I can have a look to fix these cases, but I'm afraid to break many tools relying on the current behavior of the rewriter :) But if I can succeed doing that, I can keep using RB rewriter of course.
----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Deprecator-tp4769843p4772319.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.