Em 30/05/2011 23:27, Eliot Miranda < [email protected] > escreveu:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Craig Latta <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > [It's] impossible to authoritatively classify anything as "dead > > > code" unless there's a reference standard of what's core and > > what's not core... > Yeah, in the meantime I define "dead" as "not run for some amount > of time". > > Surely "dead" means not used in the transitive closure of useful > packages. I don't see anyone in this thread proposing to trawl > Monticello repositories looking for the latest versions of packages > and then analysing what messages these packages send. Perhaps could we use this insight and reverse the consequent and the antecedent: how about have Monticello when having packages deposited create a database of messages sent? To start it could be just a set and afterwards we could go after the "real thing" with a kind of associative tree so we could know which packages are clients of which methods. my 0.1999999..... -- Cesar Rabak
