On May 14, 2013, at 7:05 PM, Chris Muller <asquea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One of the most innovative concepts Smalltalk brought as a language in > the 1970's is the notion of sending messages. I don't think removing > #respondsTo: will help cure bad code. It will It is like isKindOf: Signs of non polymorphic code and/or unexpected contracts. > For a system as capable as > Pharo, to go far with it, I just don't think there's any way around > the need for students to /learn/ the best practices and not use > unnecessary reflection in apps. But /app-building/ frameworks often > need to be able to reflect on the code model. well… It is a sign of non polymorphic design. And in the industrial systems we are building we do not want that too. > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Stéphane Ducasse > <stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote: >> Hi >> >> I'm in favor killing all the respondsTo: >> >> acceptTextMorphs >> "Accept any text morphs except for those that have no edits." >> >> self allMorphs do: [:p | >> ((p respondsTo: #accept) and: [ >> (p respondsTo: #hasUnacceptedEdits) and: [ >> p hasUnacceptedEdits]]) ifTrue: [p accept]] >> >> :) >> >> And there are too many Smalltalk references in the system >> >
