2009/12/25 Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]>: >>> The need to have class names comes from using the global namespace: >> >> (Smalltalk at: ConsistentClass name) == ConsistentClass >> >> metaclasses is not part of global namespace and therefore don't >> required to have some constraints in >> while answering #name message. >> >> Actually, it could answer 'ClassName metaclass' , or just 'a Metaclass' >> any form is acceptable. > > No what you are saying is dogmatic.
Nope. Its anti-dogmatic. I'm not putting any expectations on what #name of metaclass should answer. > So far the metamodel of smalltalk is simple just class, packages does not > even exist > but as soons as you want to have a way to manipulate classes, you can > manipulate metaclass > and I do not know you but me I like when I want a class extension on a > metaclass that it does > not end up on the instance side. > I don't see a straight correspondence of this with #name implementation. Sure thing, i am both hands for easy & flexible manipulation of classes & metaclasses. So, maybe let's duscuss, what problem you encountered, and try to pick best solution(s). As i understand you trying to build a class meta-model in memory, but don't want to expose it to system, until it will be ready for installing. >> I'd rather punish those, who in own code expecting that metaclasses >> should answer something which can be parsed for detecting a class >> name! -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
