On Dec 13, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Marcus Denker wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO we should also check senders in Pharo and Pharo Web. Pharo core in
>>> itself is nothing. Pharo is the platform for other tools. We have the dev
>>> and web image. We should take care about the packages that are loadable in
>>> Pharo. I am not saying not to remove the method, but at least, to check in
>>> dev and web images and if there are senders, send an email to the
>>> developers/maintainers notifying about this change. Even if the messages
>>> shouldn't be part of the API. With this we avoid possible DNU at runtime.
>>> Not all the external packages covers a good percent of tested code in their
>>> unit tests.
>>>
>>
>> Yes... but there is really stuff that nobody needs.
>>
>>
>> Yes, of course. But for example, the other day ifNil:ifNotNilDo: and
>> ifNotNilDo:ifNil: were removed. And maybe are packages that use them, for
>> example O2.
>>
>
> No, I just change all senders of those methods... to use the one without Do:,
> which is inlined and thus much faster. And nicer.
... and that was for ifNotEmptyDo:, refactoring to call ifNotNil: ist on the
TODO (hundrets of senders... ParseTreeRewriter to the rescue.
Marcus
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
