On 31 October 2013 08:25, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
> I completely disagree with this point of view :).
>
> We should assume an open world, not a close one. From this point of view,
> any part of the system should be extensible by anyone. In most other
> languages I know, it is not even possible to extend easily a class with new
> functionality. In Pharo we can, and we know it is a powerful mechanism. It
> is not the responsibility of the base class to know what extensions are out
> there and protect against them. Just like with subclassing, It is in the
> responsibility of the extender.
>
> We should be able to do the same with state as well. Without this
> mechanism, we are forced to put in place clunky dictionary-based mechanism
> to support state extension. Essentially, any white-box framework does that.
> For example, Morphic does that, FAMIX and Roassal do that, too (and yes,
> this is not a bad thing).
>
> We need this mechanism in the environment, and if I understand Slots
> correctly, now we have first class support for it. This also means that
> overrides will be easier to deal with, too. Of course, overrides can induce
> headaches from time to time, but we should treat these headaches with
> proper tools, not by forbidding the world to extend.
>
> And if we are at it, we should also be able to extend a class with Traits,
> too.
>
> it is doable, and easily, as others saying nothing prevents you from
saying
SomeClass addInstvarNames: 'foo'
but the problems in not extending per se, but how you manage it at source
level?
Like you said, we now having slots.. so
then how you think a class definition may look like if some class has
extension slots
defined by other package?
Object subclass: #Point
slots: {
x, y -> Kernel-Classes
z -> ThirdPartyRandomExtensionPackage
z -> SecondThirdPartyRandomExtensionPackage
z -> ThirdThirdPartyRandomExtensionPackage
}
i am not against being open.
i am against being open to opening can of worms ;)
(Apart from completely inadequate proportion between effort to implement
such feature and supporting it in many tools (MC etc) comparing to the
actual/current need of having it).
Clearly, there is no limits in complexity where we can go in attempt to
describe our systems with metadata up to tiniest level of detail.
Except from some real-world ones:
- implementation effort
- ease of learn & use
- and at last.. sanity :)
Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2013-10-30, at 22:36, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't think there's something to fix.
>> > You cannot 'extend' classes belonging to other package in any other way
>> > than adding extension methods.
>> > Allowing extension of ivars or any other vars by foreign package
>> > is road to nowhere.
>> >
>> > I would not like if shape of my kernel classes depends on what packages
>> i load
>> > or in what order i loaded them.
>> > To me it is clear that if one needs to add/remove/modify instance
>> variables
>> > of some class, those changes should belong to the package containing
>> that class,
>> > not some random package.
>>
>> Exactly, it would cause the same problem as we have with overrides in
>> monticello
>>
>
>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Every thing has its own flow"
>
--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.
