>> > If possible it should abstract away from MethodFinder and encode something > about side-effects… > > Or one could have some form of sandboxed secure environment to run > stuff and it's not a problem if there are side effects. > > It's all not easy… doing MethodFinder right is very hard. > Up to the point that the trivial thing there is now is the actually the sweet > spot? > > Of course the code is horrible, absolutely horrible… I even removed it in the > development phase of 1.0 once, because it is just ugly and referencing so many > symbols… but it is a fun demo.
Method Finder is not a demo it is a really powerful tool. So we should invest in it Stef > Now how can one implement that fun demo > "For real"? > > Having the info that a method can be called safely actually could be > interesting > for other things, e.g. random testing. http://code.google.com/p/yeti-test/ > > Marcus > >
