Adrian, All external code would need to be adapted.
Bill Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D. University of Florida Department of Anesthesiology PO Box 100254 Gainesville, FL 32610-0254 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (352) 846-1285 FAX: (352) 392-7029 >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/05/08 2:52 AM >>> On Jun 5, 2008, at 00:27 , Bill Schwab wrote: > Stef, Damien, > > No surprise, I would argue that we proceed, and would also include a > rename of #next to #nextOrNil and #next: to #nextAvailable:. All > code in the image at the time should work as before. What would be the impact on code that is not in the image? Would all external packages need to be adapted as well or would the current semantics be preserved? Adrian > The next step (part B) would be to add exception-aware #next and > #next:. > > Damien and I could cook it up, try it, and then return with an "all > clear." > > Bill > > > > > > Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D. > University of Florida > Department of Anesthesiology > PO Box 100254 > Gainesville, FL 32610-0254 > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (352) 846-1285 > FAX: (352) 392-7029 > > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/4/2008 10:36 AM >>> > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
