Sorry for delay, I was taken by some other business :) I fixed the bug you reported: check new version.
On 7 août 2014, at 16:42, Sean P. DeNigris <[email protected]> wrote: > camille teruel wrote >> It's because I don't want users to have to know RB pattern syntax and also >> because I plan to not depend on the rewriter in future versions. > > Ah I see. RB is powerful and well-known. While easy to replace for simple > cases, I wonder if you might be forced to either limit that power or > reinvent the wheel... Why not just rely on RB, which was designed for this > and battle hardened over many years? There are some problems with RB rewriter in some cases. For example it's hard to rewrite the sender of one message inside a cascaded messages because it entails changing some surrounding nodes to be a correct transformation. There are other cases like that that don't do what one expects. I can have a look to fix these cases, but I'm afraid to break many tools relying on the current behavior of the rewriter :) But if I can succeed doing that, I can keep using RB rewriter of course. > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Deprecator-tp4769843p4772319.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
