But I cannot recompile the method I fileout. Can you? May be this is because I did not use the filelist and I copied and pasted from the file veronica sent me.
> this is not because people were not using a decent syntax to fileout and that > after they hacked the system that this is not a bug. > Yes, it is by no way meant to be human written and does not decently meet the > requirements for scripting. > For exchanging code, the chunk format is a bit poor too, but it is manageable > with a good change list tool (not the squeak one). > And remember, it was (and is still) used for logging system changes in the > change log. > And it is very efficient for that. > With chunk format, you don't need quoting the code (except exclamation mark > itself of course), and that's an important feature > IMO, this format served its purpose very decently. > Well, you can tell me the Squeak hacks to identify authors and timestamp are > awfully implemented, I can only agree, but the basis are very simple. TSTTCPW. I think that it would deserve a new pass. Because "very simple" is not true when you look at the complexity = invoking the scanner to get some information and then poking around to know if this is a comment or a class definition. > But you can. > You can browse the code, can't you ? go and see in .sources or .changes, > you'll see a doubled ! > You can fileOut, then fileIn, no problem. I spent some days a couple of year ago in the filein fileout because I wanted to load all the code of squeak starting from sq10 -> 3.9 and I can tell you that the allButLast first .... kind of expressions to skip over ' or ! to me indicate a problem because saving a element of program should not be like that and this is why the format of the fileout is not good. Of course it works but it does not mean that this is good. Stef
