On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Stéphane Ducasse < [email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 2011, at 12:18 AM, Eliot Miranda wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > does this test look right to you? Isn't the line "self > assert:wrapper wasActive" just bogus? > > > > MwMethodWrapperTest>>testWasActive > > > > | wrapper | > > wrapper := self wrapperClass on: #methodOne inClass: MwClassA. > > self deny: wrapper wasActive. > > wrapper install. > > self deny: wrapper wasActive. > > wrapper uninstall. > > self assert: wrapper wasActive. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > looks suspicious to me. > I played a lot with the internals of MW on VW and I do not see this test as > making sense. > > > > self > > should: [wrapper install] > > raise: Error. > > Similarly (may be this is the squeak/phaor implementation) but normally > installing/uninstalling should be revertable without this last test. > Thanks! That makes sense to me too (and the final "self should: [wrapper install] raise: Error" does not raise an error with the current code). > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > the most up-to-date MethodWrappers I can find is for Squeak 3.9, > pre-closures. Anyone have anything compatible with Squeak 4.1/4.2/Pharo > 1.1/1.2/1.3? > > > > -- > > best, > > Eliot > > > > > > > > > > -- > > best, > > Eliot > > > > > -- best, Eliot
