Lukas,
Re "I hope that we do not have to implement our own stream
hierarchy as
well."
I do not intend to be confrontational, but you are over-reacting.
Nothing I am proposing would force you to create a stream hierarchy.
Worry not, as I do not see my proposal being accepted anyway. I will
simply add protocol that meets my needs, convert to it, and move on.
If by your proposal, you mean relying on a default action to preserve
behavior, that is not a solution. The whole point of exceptions is
to
fail loudly vs. (potentially) passing garbage into code that might or
might not recognize what happened. The default action makes it too
easy
to miss. The very thing that keeps you happy subjects my customers
to
risk that I consider to be unacceptable, especially given that
there are
simple (if tedious) solutions that will avoid the problem.
My particular RB limitations are based on what is built into Dolphin,
and an old version at that. I need to see what Damien has on
offer. My
understanding is that the "comment abuse" is greatly reduced
relative to
what I have experienced. Failing that, there are other text-
processing
methods.
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] 06/06/08 9:13 AM >>>
The changes I propose would be almost trivial for them to adopt, and
might actually make their lives easier in targeting Dolphin, should
they
wish to do so.
Yes, I agree. The rewrite engine can fix all these things.
All arguments in favor of preserving current behavior have been
based
on
backward compatibility - nothing on merits.
I am only saying that keeping things backward compatible in critical
position makes everything easier. Frankly, I like the solution I
proposed and that apparently other people have thought out as well.
You can use both semantics, depending on what makes more sense in
your
context. And best of all, it does not break existing code. I am
missing a reason why Alan Knight think this solution is not good.
or Seaside, I would certainly keep Seaside going, though I suspect
the
Seaside developers would accomodate us in trying to align the
dialects.
We never forced anybody to align their dialect. If possible, we
always
changed our own code. We introduced compatibility layers that porters
can fill or we simply built our own classes. I hope that we do not
have to implement our own stream hierarchy as well.
[*] I assume that I will write Dolphin code to export something that
Pharo can load. If any of you know of a good solution to that
problem,
please let me know. In case you are wondering why the renaming is
all
done in Pharo, it is because it hopefully does a better job of
leaving
formatting in tact - D5's version of the RB is fairly hostile in
that
regard.
The rewrite engine in Squeak/Pharo reformats all code it touches.
VisualWorks has some improvements in that area. I discussed with John
Brant and he said that these improvements are part of the open-source
refactoring browser, however the problem is that Cincom modified the
code and that the original improvements are not part of the download
on John's website. Therefor it is not clear, what code is clean and
what code is commercial.
Cheers,
Lukas
--
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch
_______________________________________________
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
