16 Sep
2010
16 Sep
'10
12:07 p.m.
An idea is to create a "small" configuration with only things needed for
generating mse file of Pharo.
Two question about that:
- is it possible to separate the behaviors ? I think yes.
- is it possible to generate a mse of pharo ? I'm not sure.
This small configuration could be useful to import code from squeak.
As they want to do modular Squeak, it will be a good thing to study the changes between
versions.
But, putting all Moose on Pharo1.2 is useful. So we should do both.
Jannik
On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:40 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Simon Denier wrote:
---
Jannik Laval
That could be interesting. Meanwhile we can just
try to load Moose in Pharo 1.2 and see how it works :)
try but we will break Moose.
So may be investing one week would solve that problem is better than getting in 1.2.
Simon
On 16 sept. 2010, at 09:28, Stéphane Ducasse <Stephane.Ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Hi guys
I think that we should leverage the pharo infrastructure to be able analyze pharo
unstable.
We should make sure that we can
- load code in a separate system dictionary
- perform analysis of code in that separate namespace
this way we can use Moose 4.1 in pharo 1.1 to load pharo 1.2 unstable.
It will be shaky the first time but it should work.
wat do you think?
Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev