2010/12/31 Levente Uzonyi <[email protected]> > On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote: > > ahahaa.. you guys are killing me.. >> You are taking things too serious. >> Yeah.. i would be gladly hear from Levente, what is 'the proper >> deprecation policy'. >> But since nobody described it, we are doomed to use one, invented before >> :) >> > > I described my ideas here, so I won't repeat it. But I can tell you that > removing a method which wasn't deprecated at all is _not_ a proper > deprecation policy.
+1. > > > >> Nothing is perfect, but its not the reason to fight. >> > > There's no fight. > > > Levente > > > >> On 31 December 2010 15:34, Nicolas Cellier >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Stephane, >>> You can't be serious: you learn something usefull from students acid >>> comments and nothing from the ones of Levente ? >>> Comm'on! >>> It's guaranteed that you'll get complaints. Only who doesn't do anything >>> won't. >>> Forgetting is human, mistakes are, and unfortunately your are human too. >>> You must accept to fail, and you must accept some critics: it's up to >>> you to turn these in positive feedback. >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> Nicolas >>> >>> 2010/12/31 Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Thanks for the usual rant. This is good to have you here because we >>>> could have forgotten. >>>> Now of course we apply deprecation (we are probably the guy responsible >>>> to get the methods in Squeak long long time ago) >>>> but there are moments when there is too much to deprecate or when people >>>> forget. >>>> And forgetting is humane. Now if your company has lot of money, we can >>>> hire another engineer and work full speed >>>> and apply even more software engineering practices. >>>> Now it does not mean that we do not pay attention. We pay attention to >>>> people and to their product. >>>> May be each community needs its pain in the ass after all it shows that >>>> we get cooler and cooler. But it would be nice >>>> if you could give us a break. >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 31, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Levente Uzonyi wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 The need for the check it outdated, but the method is still sent by 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Levente >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/30/10, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hopefully that can eventually be said as "backward compatibility with >>>>>>> good >>>>>>> stuff is a priority for Pharo." Moving targets are perhaps best >>>>>>> left >>>>>>> moving for now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>>>> [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Levente >>>>>>> Uzonyi >>>>>>> [[email protected]] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:13 PM >>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] WeakArray>>isFinalizationSupported >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (or so) which is unrelated. The method was removed during a >>>>>>> "cleanup". And >>>>>>> as you know, backwards compatibility is not a priority for Pharo. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Levente >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> =========================================================================== >>>>>> John M. McIntosh <[email protected]> >>>>>> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. >>>>>> http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com >>>>>> >>>>>> =========================================================================== >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >> >>
