On Jun 4, 2008, at 5:20 PM, Damien Cassou wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
here is what I propose for on:
I will move your package out of the inbox so that the discussion
can go on
and
I try to integrate all the other changes.
Then with bill and others you propose how to proceed.
Is it ok ?
What do you mean by 'I will move your package out of the inbox'? Do
you mean you simply delete the packages or you moved them to Pharo?
I mean move them to the treatedBox without putting in the image
Replacing 'ReadStream on: smth' by 'smth readStream' is not mandatory.
However, it makes the code simpler to read, avoids a direct class
reference and allows different implementation of #readStream depending
on the kind of collection it is sent to. I do not think anyone is
against that as soon as I apply the automatic refactoring carefully. I
did that and didn't see any place where the RB did a bad job. It even
detected that SequenceableCollection>>readStream should not be changed
to avoid infinite recursion.
Do you think there is a problem that I might take care of?
Now as a group how do we want to handle this case?
We give a try and trust damien?
Stef
--
Damien Cassou
Peter von der Ahé: «I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good
luck». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu)
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
