On 11 January 2011 09:14, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: > but igor for example in the case of soul, it means that you should load the > SoulCompiler which is > normal if you want to use soul compiled methods. > Now having a reference to a class makes static warning easier than just an > object. >
>From that perspective it doesn't makes any difference: referencing a missing class in #compilerClass, or in #newCompiler would lead to same error/warning. What makes these approaches different is where you controlling the creation and initialization of compiler instance. > Stef > > On Jan 11, 2011, at 12:55 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> On 10 January 2011 20:52, Nicolas Cellier >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Parser is not hardcoded (except in tests), but parserClass is >>> sometimes sent to the wrong class.. >>> Example is Text>>makeSelectorBold (sent from Debugger) >>> It should be replaced with makeSelectorBoldIn: >>> >>> Also notice that source code files cannot be analyzed if they contain >>> classes absent from current system that define their own parserClass. >>> That is a problem for change lists, and possibly for MC (it would be >>> interesting to try). >>> >> >> I think that there could be a solution to that. >> We could require that certain methods like #newParser, #newCompiler >> should be written in smalltalk. >> Then code import tools could rely on that and compile these methods >> first, and then could use them to compile the rest of class'es source >> code. >> >> >>> Nicolas >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >> > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
