Thank you! I can review it tomorrow morning. Doru
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Martin Dias <[email protected]> wrote: > hhahah, ok, I'm on it > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, please! >> >> Doru >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Esteban Lorenzano >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> yes, please :) >>> >>> On 28 Jan 2014, at 13:47, Martin Dias <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> So, what to do? >>>> - Don't send ClassModifiedClassDefinition in >>>> SystemAnnouncer>>traitDefinitionChangedFrom: oldTrait to: newTrait ? >>>> - Implement Trait>>layout ? >>>> - Test for oldClassDefinition isTrait in >>>> ClassModifiedClassDefinition>>isPropagating ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> I discussed with Camille and we think it's better this other >>> alternative: to fix class builder to only announce >>> ClassModifiedClassDefinition for the class that really changed its >>> definition. For the subclasses, it won't be announced. This way, it's not >>> necessary to check if it is a propagation. We can remove the two >>> implementors and the unique sender. >>> >>> I verified that this was the behavior of "old class builder" (in Pharo >>> 2). Do you agree? >>> >>> I can submit a slice this afternoon. >>> >>> MartÃn >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Every thing has its own flow" >> > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
