On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Miguel Cobá wrote:
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The need for the check it outdated, but the method is still sent by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
You're right, those popups with the deprecation warnings are really
encouraging people to not update the code. And who would give a damn about
the deprecation message anyway? It's better to guess why things don't work
or ask someone else (list).
Levente
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
