On 12 Dec 2013, at 08:14, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr> wrote: > > On 12 Dec 2013, at 06:31, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > > Hi Stephan, > > > > Thanks for pushing the #packages problem. > > > > > > But, it's strange that the Pharo3 build is not red. Could it be that the > > test was not integrated into Pharo? > > > the test tests that there is no #packages in Pharo on the class side other > than the one that returns the > rpackage istance. > —> this is the case, the test is green. > > Oh, so the API classes were fixed. I should have checked before (I just did). > Great. > But *Grease* still is the problem: in the tradition of the wonderful philosophy “Lets keep all smalltalk crappy and provide some layer on top”, it redefines #package and therefore requires that no Smalltalk ever implements #packages on the class side to return the system concept of package.
What you need to find out: Why does Grease need a #package method? Is there a GreasePackage class? What is it’s responsibility? wouldn’t it be good enough to have a #gpackage method? In general, you should evaluate Grease and put all the *concepts* it adds into Pharo itself. This way even the Core system can use them and everything gets better. Marcus