Hi. In VW they proposed the change I forward. I think it is very cool. Mostly for newcomers or people that come from static and typed languages. What do you think? Cheers Mariano ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Niall Ross <niallfr@btinternet.com> Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [vwnc] Stupid Smalltalk question... To: rickf@ca-flower.com Cc: VWNC NC <vwnc@cs.uiuc.edu> Dear Rick,

On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:42:05 -0700, Travis Griggs <tgriggs@cincom.com> wrote:

...

Are you sure it's not simply confirming that you want to remove the method, even tho there are 174 _references_ (i.e. senders) to that method?

Thanks Travis/David.. Both of you are spot on.. I was worried based on the wording the browser gave me.. I think some better verbiage would reduce confusion for those of us that not long term smalltalkers.. IMHO..

1) Possible revised message: 174 senders call this or another of the 26 implementors of #attributes Do you want to proceed? Yes Browse References No More helpful? (Compare the message you get when renaming a multiply-implemented method.) 2) I keep meaning to extend the RBDynamicRenaming utility to handle dynamic removing. It will not happen for 7.7.1 but I may get around to it. (Meanwhile, of course, the coverage tool can let you see whether it is called, and if so by whom, during some test or exercise of the code.) Yours faithfully Niall Ross _______________________________________________ vwnc mailing list vwnc@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc