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
