On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Marcus Denker<denker@acm.org> wrote:
On 10.08.2009, at 02:19, Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez wrote:
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1058
Can this two classes be merged (the share 80% or more than methods and several are identical, maybe were copied) and then (assuming that the BlockClosure will be the enduring):
Smalltalk at: #BlockContext put: BlockClosure
This way several packages that extend BlockContext will work in the new closure vm, for example Magma.
I don't think this is a good idea. BlockClosures are *not* contexts. So methods that are about the context part of BlockContext will fail.
I think we should just keep BlockContext for backward-compatibility in 1.0. This way, people can load code and than check if the methods needs to go to MethodContext or BlockClosures.
    Marcus
Ok, I assumed that like both classes share a lot of methods, they were mostly interchangeable. So by the responses, I think that this implies that changes will be neccesary to port packages that extend BlockContext to work in Pharo, while, at the same time, they must conserve the extensions to BlockContext. I imagine that given the closure integration in Squeak, this will force all the packages to use BlockClosure (or equivalent class) to update their packages. Miguel Cobá
-- Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project