Stef, Just out of curiosity (and to tell me how excited to get<g>), what will the state of the system after these changes? Will _ be allowed in method names? In class names?
Bill Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D. University of Florida Department of Anesthesiology PO Box 100254 Gainesville, FL 32610-0254 Email: [email protected] Tel: (352) 273-6785 FAX: (352) 392-7029 >>> [email protected] 12/21/08 4:55 AM >>> Hi gwenael Today I want to integrate your changes since I thought that you gave us the code of the methods but fixed and not just the selectors. Now this list is long and I do not want to do it by hand. Could publish a slice in the pharoInbox with all the code changed? If you cannot do it right now tell us how we can proceed. You can do two slices one for [:e and one for _ -> := Stef On Dec 18, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Gwenael Casaccio wrote: > Hi, > > I've discussed with Stephane and may be we can fix all the methods > that have : > _ instead of := > or some methods have [ : myArg ... ] instead of [ :myArg .... ] > > So we can use a parser that strictly check that we respect grammar. > There is in this mail an attach file that contains the list of the > classes and > methods that are not corrects. > > Cheers, > Gwenael Casaccio > > > > <parsingerrors.txt.zip>_______________________________________________ > 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
