[Newbies] Re: anObject select: #aMethodName -- is this good Squeak?
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:21:53 +0100, Giovanni Corriga wrote: Il giorno gio, 08/02/2007 alle 07.53 +0100, Lukas Renggli ha scritto: That was one of the things that I originally thought would weigh against this idiom, but found to my surprise that Senders of identified these references correctly-- I'd previously found symbols being included in my results and wondered why, but it looks as though someone was aware of this gotcha. Yes, browsing senders also works. Squeak puts all the data needed by a compiled method into a special place called literal array. So all selectors you send (expect special ones like #ifTrue:, #ifFalse:, #and:, #or, #whileTrue, ...) are in there, all symbols you use, all classes you reference, all strings and numbers. If you browse for senders, the system just looks at this literal array and doesn't make the difference if this is just a symbol or an actual selector of a message send. Does it? I tried browsing for senders on a 3.9 image before sending my message, and it didn't work. What was that symbol (for reproduction)? FWIW in #thoroughWhichSelectorsReferTo:special:byte: it is sought for #allButLast of the method's literals. This can be a problem if the method wasn't (re-)created after the image was traitified. Also, SystemNavigation#allCallsOn: is influenced by (Preferences thoroughSenders). /Klaus Giovanni ___ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
Re: [Newbies] Re: anObject select: #aMethodName -- is this good Squeak?
Il giorno gio, 08/02/2007 alle 11.37 +0100, Klaus D. Witzel ha scritto: On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:21:53 +0100, Giovanni Corriga wrote: Does it? I tried browsing for senders on a 3.9 image before sending my message, and it didn't work. What was that symbol (for reproduction)? FWIW in #thoroughWhichSelectorsReferTo:special:byte: it is sought for #allButLast of the method's literals. This can be a problem if the method wasn't (re-)created after the image was traitified. Also, SystemNavigation#allCallsOn: is influenced by (Preferences thoroughSenders). Ok, looking for senders from the Method Finder and/or the Message Finder works. But clicking on the Senders button on the browser doesn't show the symbol with the other selectors. I tested this by creating a bogus class and adding a method with this: #(1 2 3) select: #even. thoroughSenders is set. Giovanni ___ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
[Newbies] Re: anObject select: #aMethodName -- is this good Squeak?
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:15:34 +0100, Giovanni Corriga wrote: Il giorno gio, 08/02/2007 alle 11.37 +0100, Klaus D. Witzel ha scritto: On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:21:53 +0100, Giovanni Corriga wrote: Does it? I tried browsing for senders on a 3.9 image before sending my message, and it didn't work. What was that symbol (for reproduction)? FWIW in #thoroughWhichSelectorsReferTo:special:byte: it is sought for #allButLast of the method's literals. This can be a problem if the method wasn't (re-)created after the image was traitified. Also, SystemNavigation#allCallsOn: is influenced by (Preferences thoroughSenders). Ok, looking for senders from the Method Finder and/or the Message Finder works. But clicking on the Senders button on the browser doesn't show the symbol with the other selectors. I tested this by creating a bogus class and adding a method with this: #(1 2 3) select: #even. thoroughSenders is set. I tested: in IntegerTest#testEven I added a line at the end . self assert: (1 perform: #odd) Now senders of #odd, when selecting 'odd' and doing alt-n, includes the changed method. But the browser's senders button apparently is not in sync with the much better capabilities of #allCallsOn: and #thoroughSenders. I must say that this was the first time ever that I used this particular button ;-) /Klaus Giovanni ___ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
Re: [Newbies] Re: A do with ONLY index? (plus,. a style question)
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 02:16:09 -0800, Klaus D. Witzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You might want to compare: class sidenew | instance | instance := self new. instance thisAndThat extra code needed. ^ instance instance sideinitialize sent automatically by Behaviornew iVar1 := 'text'. iVar2 := 0 The latter is preferable over the former (less code, less maintenance). But often people put utility methods like #on:, #with: etc on the class side, for non-trivial initializations. When you say sent automatically by Behaviornew is that true? In other words: x := abitraryObject new. results in an attempt to call arbitraryObjectinitialize? From the (re-)usability point of view, if you had getters/setters (like in traits), the perfect approach is x := MyClass new setY: 'text'; setZ: 0; yourself. Or, like I prefer to do it (x := MyClass new) setY: 'text'; setZ: 0. I suppose we don't worry much about the waste of, say, setting up some features with default values and then having to discard those when the user sets them to something actually useful? ===Blake=== ___ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
