El vie, 31-12-2010 a las 10:22 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió: > On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, John McIntosh wrote: > > > Well the question as pointed out was does this vm support weak object > > finalization? and since all closure vm support finalization, then > > asking the question was mute, so it was ditched. Sophie from the 2003 > > era had to ask. > > The need for the check it outdated, but the method is still sent by > external packages. With proper deprecation policy the method would be > still available. It would simply return true and raise a deprecation > warning.
But having a deprecated existing method also encourage to never update the external packages, so old bits are floating around even if not needed. Given the refactoring-mindset of the smalltalk community I'd say that better to have tha package be broken so the next one that *really* need that package update it as soon as discovered the flaw. That is a little pain in the short term for the dude that suffered the blow up of the package but overall good for the community once the package is upgraded to the new times. Cheers -- Miguel Cobá http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
