On 2013-08-21, at 17:59, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Camillo Bruni <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2013-08-21, at 17:37, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> There are some problems in NativeBoost if a method does not belong to the >>>>> class itself, i don't understand the problem very well but that is what >>>>> Igor and Stef told me. >>> >>> >>> Some methods are placeholder for generated code and the placeholder cannot >>> be avoided and there is nothing wrong in the design. >>> >>> This is why such system wide tests should be replaced by rules that each >>> package declare as false positive and adapt to the package own >>> practice. >> >> but that doesn't justify that the methods have the same contents, AFAIK this >> is what the test compares. > > so do you think that we should generate method > value > 'foo1' > > value > 'foo2' > > value > 'foo3' > > just to satisfy a test that does not apply? I guess we can find another more creative solution, but yes, if it is in the kernel, I would suggest that we apply the same sane logics: - no/little code duplication - no/little use of #perform: / #doesNotUnderstand: magic If I see code that repeats the same method in it superclass I get confused since it breaks my assumptions about Pharo code.
