Igor,
Let me rephrase the context. It is that you started this thread
yesterday Monday Apr 23, 2012 at 11:34 .You said that you are not
pleased with storing Smalltalk meta data in JSON format.
You gave the example
{
"category" : "Cypress-Tests",
"classinstvars" : [
],
"classtraitcomposition" : "{}",
"classvars" : [
],
"commentStamp" : "",
"instvars" : [
],
"name" : "CypressPatchTest",
"pools" : [
],
"super" : "CypressAbstractTest",
"traitcomposition" : "{}",
"type" : "normal" }
The cypress project URL is
https://github.com/CampSmalltalk/Cypress
This is Dale Henrichs' work.
Cypress uses JSON for storing the meta data.
There is a button called 'Fork' on the git hub project.
Dale is willing to take arguments if they are based on code.
For many people JSON is fine.
HTH :-)
Hannes
On 4/24/12, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 April 2012 14:17, Herby Vojčík <he...@mailbox.sk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24 April 2012 11:54, Dale Henrichs<dhenr...@vmware.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Stef,
>>>>
>>>> There is no Parser class and there is no Compiler class. There is a
>>>> primitive call that takes method source, class, methodDictionary, etc.
>>>> and
>>>> produces a method installed in the methodDictionary.
>>>>
>>> so you can take 1st literal from such method and you done. or you
>>> cannot access method's literals?
>>> it of course not as simple as parsing the source, but if you cannot
>>> avoid compilation..
>>>
>>>> ... JSON is and was a pragmatic choice...
>>>>
>>> well, i did not realized that GemStone have no own parser/compiler
>>> written in smalltalk.
>>
>>
>> Neither does Amber in deploy mode, unless I am mistaken.
>>
>> Why do you ever think there must be a Smalltalk parser in any Smalltalk?
>> You
>> get used to it, I understand, but it is by no means a required thing.
>> Smalltalk is Smalltalk without parser as well.
>>
>> JSON is great choice. Much better than anything proprietary, because of
>> world-wide interoperability.
>>
>
> Sorry, but you seem even more out of the context than me.
> We're talking about tools for storing and loading smalltalk code..
> which implies having a working smalltalk
> parser and compiler toolchain.
> How else you can load smalltalk source code without having the way to parse
> it?
> If you don't parse nor compile it, it is just a bunch of letters.
>
>> Herby
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko.
>
>
