On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Hernán Morales Durand <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Eliot.
>
> I iterated using #allInstances in
> LCBLightweightInstancesClassNode>>classInstances
> The are conditionals there because instances of Array and ContextPart were
> created on the fly and then selecting them in the Browser created infinite
> recursion.
>

Depending on how many anonymous behaviours there are and how frequent
they're browsed you might think of keeping them in a weak set, and
enumerating that.


>
> Hernán
>
>
> 2015-01-26 15:33 GMT-03:00 Eliot Miranda <[email protected]>:
>
> Hi Hernàn,
>>
>>     I'm curious.  How are the anonymous behaviours found so they can be
>> shown in the browser?
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Hernán Morales Durand <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-01-26 5:04 GMT-03:00 Nicolai Hess <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> 2015-01-26 7:44 GMT+01:00 Hernán Morales Durand <
>>>> [email protected]>:
>>>>
>>>>> I want to discuss case 14789 (
>>>>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/14789/Nautilus-assumes-a-class-always-understand-package)
>>>>> because a class should be browseable even without a definition. Anonymous
>>>>> classes are still classes.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Nautilus project cannot deal with the whole Smalltalk power then it
>>>>> is poorly designed and I wonder what's the advantage over the old
>>>>> OmniBrowser...
>>>>>
>>>>> Hernán
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you show what the old OmniBrowser is displaying for
>>>> Behavior new new browse
>>>>
>>>>
>>> See attach (Image is Pharo 1.2.2 #12353).
>>> The Behavior definition is not updated but one can browse the behaviors
>>> opening first the Instances Browser and then finding the class.
>>> Code is here: http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~hernan/LightweightClasses
>>>
>>>
>>>> I can not check this in Pharo, as I could not find a way to load
>>>> OmniBrowser in that image.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt it could be ported back without significan effort :(
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> nicolai
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> best,
>> Eliot
>>
>
>


-- 
best,
Eliot

Reply via email to