On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 22:14 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
On 16 Jun 2010, at 21:17, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
>> As mentioned before, there is no support for graphical support for
>> writing MSE files. The main reason here is that Smalltalk already
>> provides a good enough solution for quickly building classes and
>> methods, and annotating them is a practical solution.
> I gather there is no facility to generate the smalltalk out of the
> method annotations. Is there any reason, in principle, that it
> be done?
Well, if you have the method annotations, you already have the
Smalltalk code :).
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper>
^hoard is smalltalk code. You also have to create the instance
hoard value: aTreasure
hoard := FMMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #keeper:.
killedBy := FMMultiMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #kills.
It's the redundancy, along with the possibilities for error that would
put the smalltalk and annotation out of sync, that concerns me (and that
I'm trying to avoid).
I do not in some other classes the names in the annotations and the
names of the methods and variables are not quite in sync, so maybe this
is a feature.
Right now, the only possibility is to generate Smalltalk code out of
MSE code that represents your meta-model. This is like the famixCore
string that you saw in the image.
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot
Moose-dev mailing list