From: pharo-project-owner@lists.gforge.inria.fr Date: June 3, 2008 6:43:05 AM CEDT To: ducasse@iam.unibe.ch Subject: About on:
You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at pharo-project-owner@lists.gforge.inria.fr.
From: stéphane ducasse <ducasse@iam.unibe.ch> Date: June 3, 2008 6:42:33 AM CEDT To: An open mailing list to discuss any topics related to an open- source Smalltalk <Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr> Subject: About on:
Hi damien
here is what I propose for on: I will move your package out of the inbox so that the discussion can go on and I try to integrate all the other changes. Then with bill and others you propose how to proceed. Is it ok ?
Stef
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
here is what I propose for on: I will move your package out of the inbox so that the discussion can go on and I try to integrate all the other changes. Then with bill and others you propose how to proceed. Is it ok ?
What do you mean by 'I will move your package out of the inbox'? Do you mean you simply delete the packages or you moved them to Pharo? Replacing 'ReadStream on: smth' by 'smth readStream' is not mandatory. However, it makes the code simpler to read, avoids a direct class reference and allows different implementation of #readStream depending on the kind of collection it is sent to. I do not think anyone is against that as soon as I apply the automatic refactoring carefully. I did that and didn't see any place where the RB did a bad job. It even detected that SequenceableCollection>>readStream should not be changed to avoid infinite recursion. Do you think there is a problem that I might take care of? -- Damien Cassou Peter von der Ahé: «I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good luck». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu)
On Jun 4, 2008, at 5:20 PM, Damien Cassou wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
here is what I propose for on: I will move your package out of the inbox so that the discussion can go on and I try to integrate all the other changes. Then with bill and others you propose how to proceed. Is it ok ?
What do you mean by 'I will move your package out of the inbox'? Do you mean you simply delete the packages or you moved them to Pharo?
I mean move them to the treatedBox without putting in the image
Replacing 'ReadStream on: smth' by 'smth readStream' is not mandatory. However, it makes the code simpler to read, avoids a direct class reference and allows different implementation of #readStream depending on the kind of collection it is sent to. I do not think anyone is against that as soon as I apply the automatic refactoring carefully. I did that and didn't see any place where the RB did a bad job. It even detected that SequenceableCollection>>readStream should not be changed to avoid infinite recursion.
Do you think there is a problem that I might take care of?
Now as a group how do we want to handle this case? We give a try and trust damien? Stef
-- Damien Cassou Peter von der Ahé: «I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good luck». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu)
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
participants (2)
-
Damien Cassou -
Stéphane Ducasse