On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Good idea guys. I am trying now... >> >> >> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> On May 4, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > So...what do we do? we just accept the depedency? >>> > >>> > Why not use a CompiledMethod instead? More on, the >>> TraitMethodDescription already knows the selector, so storing only the >>> behaviors containing related methods should be enough... >>> > >>> >>> Yes, the code is old from a time when CompiledMethod did not know the >>> class or selector. >>> >>> So this can be rewritten to just use compiledMethod. >>> >> > So guys. I did an experiment with this. So I used a CompiledMethod rather > than a RGMethodDefinition. I did a changeset (not sure if Monticello can > handle these changes) just to have another one eye's on it. Basically, I > needed to change the senders of #locatedMethods because now such method > answers a collection of CompiledMethod rather than RGMethodDefinition. > > I tested with Fuel (fuel has lots of tests regarding traits) and even > building PharoCore from PharoKernel without Ring in kernel and putting all > packags in the same bundle. (it works!!!). > However, the traits tests from Pharo are completly broken and it is > impossible to do something. You run one test and you got 30 debuggers. It > is impossible to test. > > So, if someone can take a look, I really appreciate it. > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=5815 > wait. I found a problem... I will upload a new version soon. > > Thanks > > > >> >>> Marcus >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Mariano >> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >> >> > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
