> On 04 Feb 2015, at 15:14, Sean P. DeNigris <[email protected]> wrote: > > I noticed that in 4.0 one gets a (resume-able) exception when trying to > define a class in category ''. Why? Is it true, as the error message states, > that "the Category should not be empty"? One of our key principles inherited > from Smalltalk is to treat the programmer like they know what they're doing. > Although only a minor annoyance in this case, I often create classes in > empty categories specifically because they are throwaways - like a temp > directory, and was a bit confused by the debugger popping up, especially > before I realized that the exception was resume-able... > > Also, that made me think about something else... What if the debugger > somehow made it immediately obvious whether the exception was resume-able? > That could be useful in cases like these to make the user's options clearer. >
We could solve that together with this: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/14097/generated-code-non-existing-package-has-uncommited-code <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/14097/generated-code-non-existing-package-has-uncommited-code> if you generate code via meta programming, the resulting methods now have to be in a package. Which is not good, as it will be dirty. Maybe we could have a general place for all these? Marcus
