Yes this was implied in my question to adrian. As soon as one query is not covered then you can bring everything back and since they were code that did not check isInMemory you could break everything in a finger snap. So I believe that they were following a specific and heavily restricted scenario and pray that nobody else calls the normal methods... somehow brittle.
Stef On Mar 21, 2010, at 11:10 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2010, at 10:59 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: >> >> -> this of course means that #subclasses would just return those that >> by chance are >> in memory... I don't understand how that can work. Honestly :-) >> > > of course, they realized that, too. Thus: #subclasses never checked for > #isInMemory. > > But there where strangely names methods to iterate over all subclasses in > memory (called #allSubclassesDoGently:). > > But Smalltalk>>#classNames foes check for #isInmemory. Which means you could > have a case where a subclass would not be > in Smalltalk classNames... > > This is all fundamentally broken, sorry. > > Marcus > > -- > Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de > INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
