2010/5/10 Mariano Martinez Peck <[email protected]>: > > > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Stéphane Ducasse > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> not for 1.1 guy. it worked so far.... so let us finish 1.1 >> >> > > Ok, I agree. I never said to include it in 1.1. I want just to discuss about > it. > 2c
I think , right question is to ask, why PackageInfo should even bother to answer this message. Right now , we having a classes and traits. Now suppose, that in some distant future, we might want to add another kind of behavior/data grouping into a package. So, should we then implement PackageInfo >>classesAndTraitsAndGrouping as well? > > >> >> On May 10, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: >> >> > Hi folks. I've just discovered that PackageInfo >> classes return a >> > collection of classes AND traits. This is incorrect. Solutions are: >> > >> > 1) Rename #classes to #classesAndTraits >> > 2) Modify #classes so that it ONLY answer classes >> > >> > I would like to fix it but I am not sure the consequences of such >> > change. Maybe Monticello doesn't take into account Traits anymore hahha >> > >> > Thanks for any help you can give. >> > >> > Mariano >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
