Hi Jorge,

Just let me know when you think the code is ok for 1.0 or when you have 
something different that I should integrate. Thanks!

Cheers,
Adrian

On Mar 4, 2010, at 09:37 , Jorge Ressia wrote:

> Hi Adrian,
> 
> Yep, I have the same problem as you. My idea was to make it work as
> before without completely changing it. Basically because I did not
> have the test support to validate my changes.
> Anyhow, what I propose is to write a bunch of tests for every case
> that we know and then if new cases show up add them to the test suite.
> And then play with the code.
> 
> I will work on that today, is that ok?
> 
> For the explanation of what is going on is that now node can be an
> instance variable node, then the behavior that was there was not
> appropriate in the sense that instance variable nodes do not
> understand #scope.
> However, why this validation "(node isTemp or: [requestor
> interactive])" was there in the first place is not that clear to me,
> but it's been there since 1999.
> 
> I'll try to build the tests and come up with a better solution.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jorge
> 
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Adrian Lienhard <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jorge,
>> 
>> I looked at the code to integrate in 1.0. And I really have troubles 
>> understanding it (even after drawing a boolean table for the different 
>> combinations of or: ifTrue: and: ifFalse:). Is it correct that the warning 
>> is shown when node isTemp is false and requestor interactive is true? Is the 
>> comment still accurate?
>> 
>> This is the code:
>> 
>> "When non-interactive raise the error only if its a duplicate"
>> (node isTemp or: [requestor interactive])
>>        ifTrue:[ ((node isTemp) and: [node scope <= 0] )
>>                                        ifFalse: [^self notify:'Name is 
>> already defined' ]]
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Adrian
>> 
>> On Mar 3, 2010, at 20:47 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>> 
>>> 11243
>>> -----
>>> 
>>> - Issue 2102: Fix the fact that local temp can shadow silently instance var 
>>> --- fixed
>>>       Problem fixed:
>>> We cannot have twice the same block arg in a method
>>> 
>>>       [:each | each ...]
>>>       [:each | each ...]
>>> 
>>> THANKS jorge :)
>>> Do you like good bio beer?
>>> 
>>> Stef
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

Reply via email to