Hi
I will implement the following and I would like to let you know so that you can give feedback
when we do not merge a class and its metaclass the instance variable of a metaclass could have an instanceScope since it is true that the instance variable is an instance one.
Now when we merge a class and its metaclass the class instance variable should have a class scope since from the base class it is clearly a class scope variable.
For shared this is simple they are shared and have a classScope.
Now from a user point of view I would like that an analysis does not depend on whether we merged or not the class and metaclass. So I will put classScope to instance variable of the metaclass even when they are not merged with the base class.
This way we always get the following situation
isntance varaible -> instanceScope class instance variable -> classScope shared -> classScope + isShared
Let me know what you think since I will implement the following and write tests.
Stef
when we do not merge a class and its metaclass the instance variable of a metaclass could have an instanceScope since it is true that the instance variable is an instance one.
Yes
Now when we merge a class and its metaclass the class instance variable should have a class scope since from the base class it is clearly a class scope variable.
humm... class and metaclass variables will belong to one unique instance scope I guess. Why should the class variable be in a different scope? Especially since a class variable begins with a capitalized letter, which is then easy to differ from instance variables.
For shared this is simple they are shared and have a classScope.
When a classes and their respective meta are merged?
Now from a user point of view I would like that an analysis does not depend on whether we merged or not the class and metaclass.
As far as I can see, an analysis may depend on whether you merge classes and metaclasses. It seems hard to imagine than any analysis should be depend on whether there is such a merging.
So I will put classScope to instance variable of the metaclass even when they are not merged with the base class.
This way we always get the following situation
isntance varaible -> instanceScope class instance variable -> classScope shared -> classScope + isShared
Let me know what you think since I will implement the following and write tests.
ah ok. It makes sense to me.
Cheers, Alexandre
On Nov 7, 2008, at 7:56 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
when we do not merge a class and its metaclass the instance variable of a metaclass could have an instanceScope since it is true that the instance variable is an instance one.
Yes
Now when we merge a class and its metaclass the class instance variable should have a class scope since from the base class it is clearly a class scope variable.
humm... class and metaclass variables will belong to one unique instance scope I guess. Why should the class variable be in a different scope? Especially since a class variable begins with a capitalized letter, which is then easy to differ from instance variables.
Because originally an instance variable has the class scope while a classVar has a class + class class Scope
For shared this is simple they are shared and have a classScope.
When a classes and their respective meta are merged?
when the importer asks for it.
Now from a user point of view I would like that an analysis does not depend on whether we merged or not the class and metaclass.
As far as I can see, an analysis may depend on whether you merge classes and metaclasses. It seems hard to imagine than any analysis should be depend on whether there is such a merging.
you mean independent? If we have the same data represented the same way independently of merging we favor that an analysis code does have to have different cases based on merging or not?
So I will put classScope to instance variable of the metaclass even when they are not merged with the base class.
This way we always get the following situation
isntance varaible -> instanceScope class instance variable -> classScope shared -> classScope + isShared
Let me know what you think since I will implement the following and write tests.
ah ok. It makes sense to me.
Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
As far as I can see, an analysis may depend on whether you merge classes and metaclasses. It seems hard to imagine than any analysis should be depend on whether there is such a merging.
you mean independent? If we have the same data represented the same way independently of merging we favor that an analysis code does have to have different cases based on merging or not?
Maybe there is something I misunderstood. Merging classes and metaclasses when importing means that one single class will represent both the class and its metaclass I guess. This means that there will be twice less classes in a model. A system complexity view on a imported (using merging) smalltalk application will be different than the one with no merging. No?
Alexandre
I'm not sure whether merging is the right way to go. One argument in favor is that otherwise one ends up having a model full of "empty" metaclasses, as the large majority of metaclasses do not implement any methods. Visually this results in a system complexity view with dual inheritance hierarchies. One argument against is that if a metaclass does implement methods, in the case of a merge, the metaclass methods would be mixed up with the "normal" methods (of course you would still be able to differentiate them within the model). Merging would just be trying to make up one (of the very few) shortcoming(s) of Smalltalk's design. With respect to shared variables, that's another thing that I think is a bit overengineered..
Cheers
Michele
On 7-Nov-08, at 8:42 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
As far as I can see, an analysis may depend on whether you merge classes and metaclasses. It seems hard to imagine than any analysis should be depend on whether there is such a merging.
you mean independent? If we have the same data represented the same way independently of merging we favor that an analysis code does have to have different cases based on merging or not?
Maybe there is something I misunderstood. Merging classes and metaclasses when importing means that one single class will represent both the class and its metaclass I guess. This means that there will be twice less classes in a model. A system complexity view on a imported (using merging) smalltalk application will be different than the one with no merging. No?
Alexandre
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi,
I think we should always merge the instance and class side. The reason is that I have never felt the need to have them separated in FAMIX, because analyses are usually meant to be language independent. Anyone else actually had a different experience?
Distinguishing between the types of methods and variables should be just enough, and we can kind of do it from a language independent point of view. I think that should be enough.
Also, if you have the instance/class sides separated you will certainly have different results for analyses than if you have them merged, regardless of what you do with the variables.
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 7, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Michele Lanza wrote:
I'm not sure whether merging is the right way to go. One argument in favor is that otherwise one ends up having a model full of "empty" metaclasses, as the large majority of metaclasses do not implement any methods. Visually this results in a system complexity view with dual inheritance hierarchies. One argument against is that if a metaclass does implement methods, in the case of a merge, the metaclass methods would be mixed up with the "normal" methods (of course you would still be able to differentiate them within the model). Merging would just be trying to make up one (of the very few) shortcoming(s) of Smalltalk's design. With respect to shared variables, that's another thing that I think is a bit overengineered..
Cheers
Michele
On 7-Nov-08, at 8:42 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
As far as I can see, an analysis may depend on whether you merge classes and metaclasses. It seems hard to imagine than any analysis should be depend on whether there is such a merging.
you mean independent? If we have the same data represented the same way independently of merging we favor that an analysis code does have to have different cases based on merging or not?
Maybe there is something I misunderstood. Merging classes and metaclasses when importing means that one single class will represent both the class and its metaclass I guess. This means that there will be twice less classes in a model. A system complexity view on a imported (using merging) smalltalk application will be different than the one with no merging. No?
Alexandre
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Value is always contextual."
I understand where this is coming from (basically everybody [including myself] using Moose thinks that metaclasses are noise most of the time, and one of the first things you do, is to "remove" them from the model). However, if I think back to the possibly only major reverse engineering experience on a very large Smalltalk system (the MediaGenix system back in 2001) there we produced a couple of views only about the (dark) class side, one of the questions being "where have they gone meta in the system?".
The language independence is a valid argument, but following this line of thought there you have the reason why Java interfaces are still being modeled as classes where one has to use a couple of methods (e.g., isClass, etc.) to establish what they actually are.
Coming back to Smalltalk, it looks like one would be giving up on details that are there already, just for the sake of language independence. And yes, the views about the dark side could also be produced if the instance and class side are merged, it just takes a bit longer, and makes the creation/conception of such views less obvious.
Cheers
Michele
On 8-Nov-08, at 12:32 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
I think we should always merge the instance and class side. The reason is that I have never felt the need to have them separated in FAMIX, because analyses are usually meant to be language independent. Anyone else actually had a different experience?
Distinguishing between the types of methods and variables should be just enough, and we can kind of do it from a language independent point of view. I think that should be enough.
Also, if you have the instance/class sides separated you will certainly have different results for analyses than if you have them merged, regardless of what you do with the variables.
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 7, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Michele Lanza wrote:
I'm not sure whether merging is the right way to go. One argument in favor is that otherwise one ends up having a model full of "empty" metaclasses, as the large majority of metaclasses do not implement any methods. Visually this results in a system complexity view with dual inheritance hierarchies. One argument against is that if a metaclass does implement methods, in the case of a merge, the metaclass methods would be mixed up with the "normal" methods (of course you would still be able to differentiate them within the model). Merging would just be trying to make up one (of the very few) shortcoming(s) of Smalltalk's design. With respect to shared variables, that's another thing that I think is a bit overengineered..
Cheers
Michele
On 7-Nov-08, at 8:42 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
As far as I can see, an analysis may depend on whether you merge classes and metaclasses. It seems hard to imagine than any analysis should be depend on whether there is such a merging.
you mean independent? If we have the same data represented the same way independently of merging we favor that an analysis code does have to have different cases based on merging or not?
Maybe there is something I misunderstood. Merging classes and metaclasses when importing means that one single class will represent both the class and its metaclass I guess. This means that there will be twice less classes in a model. A system complexity view on a imported (using merging) smalltalk application will be different than the one with no merging. No?
Alexandre
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Value is always contextual."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Guys
Do you ever read my mails? I was never considering abandoning class and metaclass separation. Then I would not spend/lose my time to introduce support for ClassVariable if I would only focus on language independence. A side note you can ask the importer to **merge or not** since two years so what is the problem? You can decide for your experience what you want to do. Now reread my original question to understand what I was proposing.
Still you are not replying to my original question so I will do it the way I want but people should not complain that I did not try to have a discussion on the topic.
Stef
On Nov 8, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Michele Lanza wrote:
I understand where this is coming from (basically everybody [including myself] using Moose thinks that metaclasses are noise most of the time, and one of the first things you do, is to "remove" them from the model). However, if I think back to the possibly only major reverse engineering experience on a very large Smalltalk system (the MediaGenix system back in 2001) there we produced a couple of views only about the (dark) class side, one of the questions being "where have they gone meta in the system?".
The language independence is a valid argument, but following this line of thought there you have the reason why Java interfaces are still being modeled as classes where one has to use a couple of methods (e.g., isClass, etc.) to establish what they actually are.
Coming back to Smalltalk, it looks like one would be giving up on details that are there already, just for the sake of language independence. And yes, the views about the dark side could also be produced if the instance and class side are merged, it just takes a bit longer, and makes the creation/conception of such views less obvious.
Cheers
Michele
On 8-Nov-08, at 12:32 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
I think we should always merge the instance and class side. The reason is that I have never felt the need to have them separated in FAMIX, because analyses are usually meant to be language independent. Anyone else actually had a different experience?
Distinguishing between the types of methods and variables should be just enough, and we can kind of do it from a language independent point of view. I think that should be enough.
Also, if you have the instance/class sides separated you will certainly have different results for analyses than if you have them merged, regardless of what you do with the variables.
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 7, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Michele Lanza wrote:
I'm not sure whether merging is the right way to go. One argument in favor is that otherwise one ends up having a model full of "empty" metaclasses, as the large majority of metaclasses do not implement any methods. Visually this results in a system complexity view with dual inheritance hierarchies. One argument against is that if a metaclass does implement methods, in the case of a merge, the metaclass methods would be mixed up with the "normal" methods (of course you would still be able to differentiate them within the model). Merging would just be trying to make up one (of the very few) shortcoming(s) of Smalltalk's design. With respect to shared variables, that's another thing that I think is a bit overengineered..
Cheers
Michele
On 7-Nov-08, at 8:42 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
As far as I can see, an analysis may depend on whether you merge classes and metaclasses. It seems hard to imagine than any analysis should be depend on whether there is such a merging.
you mean independent? If we have the same data represented the same way independently of merging we favor that an analysis code does have to have different cases based on merging or not?
Maybe there is something I misunderstood. Merging classes and metaclasses when importing means that one single class will represent both the class and its metaclass I guess. This means that there will be twice less classes in a model. A system complexity view on a imported (using merging) smalltalk application will be different than the one with no merging. No?
Alexandre
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Value is always contextual."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi Stef,
I read your original mail, and I said that I think all the trouble is really not worth it, because in fact it would be better to just not split the classes in the first place.
Your original question was about putting isClassScope and isShared regardless of merging/not merging, and the rationale was how not to break analyses. I know that since 2 years we can choose to merge or not and I like that, but now I say that we do not really gain anything by even considering not merging, because in fact you will break analyses in one way or another (for example, what should FAMIXClass>>instanceSide return?)
If we merge, then the variable problem because straightforward, as you know. Furthermore, if we merge we will also make Smalltalk fit the language independent paradigm of FAMIX.
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 8, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Guys
Do you ever read my mails? I was never considering abandoning class and metaclass separation. Then I would not spend/lose my time to introduce support for ClassVariable if I would only focus on language independence. A side note you can ask the importer to **merge or not** since two years so what is the problem? You can decide for your experience what you want to do. Now reread my original question to understand what I was proposing.
Still you are not replying to my original question so I will do it the way I want but people should not complain that I did not try to have a discussion on the topic.
Stef
On Nov 8, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Michele Lanza wrote:
I understand where this is coming from (basically everybody [including myself] using Moose thinks that metaclasses are noise most of the time, and one of the first things you do, is to "remove" them from the model). However, if I think back to the possibly only major reverse engineering experience on a very large Smalltalk system (the MediaGenix system back in 2001) there we produced a couple of views only about the (dark) class side, one of the questions being "where have they gone meta in the system?".
The language independence is a valid argument, but following this line of thought there you have the reason why Java interfaces are still being modeled as classes where one has to use a couple of methods (e.g., isClass, etc.) to establish what they actually are.
Coming back to Smalltalk, it looks like one would be giving up on details that are there already, just for the sake of language independence. And yes, the views about the dark side could also be produced if the instance and class side are merged, it just takes a bit longer, and makes the creation/conception of such views less obvious.
Cheers
Michele
On 8-Nov-08, at 12:32 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
I think we should always merge the instance and class side. The reason is that I have never felt the need to have them separated in FAMIX, because analyses are usually meant to be language independent. Anyone else actually had a different experience?
Distinguishing between the types of methods and variables should be just enough, and we can kind of do it from a language independent point of view. I think that should be enough.
Also, if you have the instance/class sides separated you will certainly have different results for analyses than if you have them merged, regardless of what you do with the variables.
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 7, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Michele Lanza wrote:
I'm not sure whether merging is the right way to go. One argument in favor is that otherwise one ends up having a model full of "empty" metaclasses, as the large majority of metaclasses do not implement any methods. Visually this results in a system complexity view with dual inheritance hierarchies. One argument against is that if a metaclass does implement methods, in the case of a merge, the metaclass methods would be mixed up with the "normal" methods (of course you would still be able to differentiate them within the model). Merging would just be trying to make up one (of the very few) shortcoming(s) of Smalltalk's design. With respect to shared variables, that's another thing that I think is a bit overengineered..
Cheers
Michele
On 7-Nov-08, at 8:42 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
> As far as I can see, an analysis may depend on whether you merge > classes and metaclasses. > It seems hard to imagine than any analysis should be depend on > whether > there is such a merging.
you mean independent? If we have the same data represented the same way independently of merging we favor that an analysis code does have to have different cases based on merging or not?
Maybe there is something I misunderstood. Merging classes and metaclasses when importing means that one single class will represent both the class and its metaclass I guess. This means that there will be twice less classes in a model. A system complexity view on a imported (using merging) smalltalk application will be different than the one with no merging. No?
Alexandre
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Value is always contextual."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Being happy is a matter of choice."
I'm not convinced because it means as michele stating that we are losing the possibility to build Smalltalk specific analysis and I want this possibility. Else I do not see why I invest in support SharedVariable support. I need that for pharo analysis.
Hi Stef,
I read your original mail, and I said that I think all the trouble is really not worth it, because in fact it would be better to just not split the classes in the first place.
now in moose we have nearly already implemented all the conventions I proposed I imagine that I thought about that before or for the first Famix st plugging (read the new other email I sent).
Your original question was about putting isClassScope and isShared regardless of merging/not merging, and the rationale was how not to break analyses.
Yes
I know that since 2 years we can choose to merge or not and I like that, but now I say that we do not really gain anything by even considering not merging, because in fact you will break analyses in one way or another (for example, what should FAMIXClass>>instanceSide return?)
itself when merging and class when not.
I will rephrase. This is not really not breaking analysis since you have to know what you are doing but this is been consistent at the level we can and providing stability when we can.
I have to check but a metaclass method should have a classScope already and independently to the fact that it is merged or not.
So at the end, next time I will check because we already have everything except the shared and the problem of name conflict between instance variables and class instance variable.
If we merge, then the variable problem because straightforward, as you know. Furthermore, if we merge we will also make Smalltalk fit the language independent paradigm of FAMIX.
but the price is too high if I cannot analyse Smalltalk code with moose then it is useless to me.
Stef
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 8, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Guys
Do you ever read my mails? I was never considering abandoning class and metaclass separation. Then I would not spend/lose my time to introduce support for ClassVariable if I would only focus on language independence. A side note you can ask the importer to **merge or not** since two years so what is the problem? You can decide for your experience what you want to do. Now reread my original question to understand what I was proposing.
Still you are not replying to my original question so I will do it the way I want but people should not complain that I did not try to have a discussion on the topic.
Stef
On Nov 8, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Michele Lanza wrote:
I understand where this is coming from (basically everybody [including myself] using Moose thinks that metaclasses are noise most of the time, and one of the first things you do, is to "remove" them from the model). However, if I think back to the possibly only major reverse engineering experience on a very large Smalltalk system (the MediaGenix system back in 2001) there we produced a couple of views only about the (dark) class side, one of the questions being "where have they gone meta in the system?".
The language independence is a valid argument, but following this line of thought there you have the reason why Java interfaces are still being modeled as classes where one has to use a couple of methods (e.g., isClass, etc.) to establish what they actually are.
Coming back to Smalltalk, it looks like one would be giving up on details that are there already, just for the sake of language independence. And yes, the views about the dark side could also be produced if the instance and class side are merged, it just takes a bit longer, and makes the creation/conception of such views less obvious.
Cheers
Michele
On 8-Nov-08, at 12:32 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
I think we should always merge the instance and class side. The reason is that I have never felt the need to have them separated in FAMIX, because analyses are usually meant to be language independent. Anyone else actually had a different experience?
Distinguishing between the types of methods and variables should be just enough, and we can kind of do it from a language independent point of view. I think that should be enough.
Also, if you have the instance/class sides separated you will certainly have different results for analyses than if you have them merged, regardless of what you do with the variables.
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 7, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Michele Lanza wrote:
I'm not sure whether merging is the right way to go. One argument in favor is that otherwise one ends up having a model full of "empty" metaclasses, as the large majority of metaclasses do not implement any methods. Visually this results in a system complexity view with dual inheritance hierarchies. One argument against is that if a metaclass does implement methods, in the case of a merge, the metaclass methods would be mixed up with the "normal" methods (of course you would still be able to differentiate them within the model). Merging would just be trying to make up one (of the very few) shortcoming(s) of Smalltalk's design. With respect to shared variables, that's another thing that I think is a bit overengineered..
Cheers
Michele
On 7-Nov-08, at 8:42 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
>> As far as I can see, an analysis may depend on whether you >> merge >> classes and metaclasses. >> It seems hard to imagine than any analysis should be depend on >> whether >> there is such a merging. > > you mean independent? > If we have the same data represented the same way independently > of > merging > we favor that an analysis code does have to have different cases > based > on merging > or not?
Maybe there is something I misunderstood. Merging classes and metaclasses when importing means that one single class will represent both the class and its metaclass I guess. This means that there will be twice less classes in a model. A system complexity view on a imported (using merging) smalltalk application will be different than the one with no merging. No?
Alexandre
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Value is always contextual."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Being happy is a matter of choice."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
I disagree that you lose the possibility of doing Smalltalk specific analyses. You do not really gain more information from an analysis point of view if you split them.
One thing you would lose is that by one glance over the unique name you won't know whether an attribute is on the instance or class side. Now you know because the name of the parent class is with '_class'. But, as you proposed before, if you put 'class_' before the variable or method you would solve that problem too.
So, here is my counter question :): Do you have a Smalltalk specific analysis in mind that would only be possible if classes are split?
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 8, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
I'm not convinced because it means as michele stating that we are losing the possibility to build Smalltalk specific analysis and I want this possibility. Else I do not see why I invest in support SharedVariable support. I need that for pharo analysis.
Hi Stef,
I read your original mail, and I said that I think all the trouble is really not worth it, because in fact it would be better to just not split the classes in the first place.
now in moose we have nearly already implemented all the conventions I proposed I imagine that I thought about that before or for the first Famix st plugging (read the new other email I sent).
Your original question was about putting isClassScope and isShared regardless of merging/not merging, and the rationale was how not to break analyses.
Yes
I know that since 2 years we can choose to merge or not and I like that, but now I say that we do not really gain anything by even considering not merging, because in fact you will break analyses in one way or another (for example, what should FAMIXClass>>instanceSide return?)
itself when merging and class when not.
I will rephrase. This is not really not breaking analysis since you have to know what you are doing but this is been consistent at the level we can and providing stability when we can.
I have to check but a metaclass method should have a classScope already and independently to the fact that it is merged or not.
So at the end, next time I will check because we already have everything except the shared and the problem of name conflict between instance variables and class instance variable.
If we merge, then the variable problem because straightforward, as you know. Furthermore, if we merge we will also make Smalltalk fit the language independent paradigm of FAMIX.
but the price is too high if I cannot analyse Smalltalk code with moose then it is useless to me.
Stef
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 8, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Guys
Do you ever read my mails? I was never considering abandoning class and metaclass separation. Then I would not spend/lose my time to introduce support for ClassVariable if I would only focus on language independence. A side note you can ask the importer to **merge or not** since two years so what is the problem? You can decide for your experience what you want to do. Now reread my original question to understand what I was proposing.
Still you are not replying to my original question so I will do it the way I want but people should not complain that I did not try to have a discussion on the topic.
Stef
On Nov 8, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Michele Lanza wrote:
I understand where this is coming from (basically everybody [including myself] using Moose thinks that metaclasses are noise most of the time, and one of the first things you do, is to "remove" them from the model). However, if I think back to the possibly only major reverse engineering experience on a very large Smalltalk system (the MediaGenix system back in 2001) there we produced a couple of views only about the (dark) class side, one of the questions being "where have they gone meta in the system?".
The language independence is a valid argument, but following this line of thought there you have the reason why Java interfaces are still being modeled as classes where one has to use a couple of methods (e.g., isClass, etc.) to establish what they actually are.
Coming back to Smalltalk, it looks like one would be giving up on details that are there already, just for the sake of language independence. And yes, the views about the dark side could also be produced if the instance and class side are merged, it just takes a bit longer, and makes the creation/conception of such views less obvious.
Cheers
Michele
On 8-Nov-08, at 12:32 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
I think we should always merge the instance and class side. The reason is that I have never felt the need to have them separated in FAMIX, because analyses are usually meant to be language independent. Anyone else actually had a different experience?
Distinguishing between the types of methods and variables should be just enough, and we can kind of do it from a language independent point of view. I think that should be enough.
Also, if you have the instance/class sides separated you will certainly have different results for analyses than if you have them merged, regardless of what you do with the variables.
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 7, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Michele Lanza wrote:
I'm not sure whether merging is the right way to go. One argument in favor is that otherwise one ends up having a model full of "empty" metaclasses, as the large majority of metaclasses do not implement any methods. Visually this results in a system complexity view with dual inheritance hierarchies. One argument against is that if a metaclass does implement methods, in the case of a merge, the metaclass methods would be mixed up with the "normal" methods (of course you would still be able to differentiate them within the model). Merging would just be trying to make up one (of the very few) shortcoming(s) of Smalltalk's design. With respect to shared variables, that's another thing that I think is a bit overengineered..
Cheers
Michele
On 7-Nov-08, at 8:42 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
>>> As far as I can see, an analysis may depend on whether you >>> merge >>> classes and metaclasses. >>> It seems hard to imagine than any analysis should be depend on >>> whether >>> there is such a merging. >> >> you mean independent? >> If we have the same data represented the same way independently >> of >> merging >> we favor that an analysis code does have to have different >> cases >> based >> on merging >> or not? > > Maybe there is something I misunderstood. Merging classes and > metaclasses when importing means that one single class will > represent > both the class and its metaclass I guess. > This means that there will be twice less classes in a model. A > system > complexity view on a imported (using merging) smalltalk > application > will be different than the one with no merging. > No? > > Alexandre > > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Value is always contextual."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Being happy is a matter of choice."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
I disagree that you lose the possibility of doing Smalltalk specific analyses.
This is true what I mean is a simple mapping. for example I would not have to do select: on methods all the time... this is more object-oriented when dealing with class/metaclass separation.
You do not really gain more information from an analysis point of view if you split them.
One thing you would lose is that by one glance over the unique name you won't know whether an attribute is on the instance or class side. Now you know because the name of the parent class is with '_class'. But, as you proposed before, if you put 'class_' before the variable or method you would solve that problem too.
So, here is my counter question :): Do you have a Smalltalk specific analysis in mind that would only be possible if classes are split?
see above. :) now for example for modrian I would have a less direct model but I agree this is why I introduce merging at the beginning :)
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 8, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
I'm not convinced because it means as michele stating that we are losing the possibility to build Smalltalk specific analysis and I want this possibility. Else I do not see why I invest in support SharedVariable support. I need that for pharo analysis.
Hi Stef,
I read your original mail, and I said that I think all the trouble is really not worth it, because in fact it would be better to just not split the classes in the first place.
now in moose we have nearly already implemented all the conventions I proposed I imagine that I thought about that before or for the first Famix st plugging (read the new other email I sent).
Your original question was about putting isClassScope and isShared regardless of merging/not merging, and the rationale was how not to break analyses.
Yes
I know that since 2 years we can choose to merge or not and I like that, but now I say that we do not really gain anything by even considering not merging, because in fact you will break analyses in one way or another (for example, what should FAMIXClass>>instanceSide return?)
itself when merging and class when not.
I will rephrase. This is not really not breaking analysis since you have to know what you are doing but this is been consistent at the level we can and providing stability when we can.
I have to check but a metaclass method should have a classScope already and independently to the fact that it is merged or not.
So at the end, next time I will check because we already have everything except the shared and the problem of name conflict between instance variables and class instance variable.
If we merge, then the variable problem because straightforward, as you know. Furthermore, if we merge we will also make Smalltalk fit the language independent paradigm of FAMIX.
but the price is too high if I cannot analyse Smalltalk code with moose then it is useless to me.
Stef
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 8, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Guys
Do you ever read my mails? I was never considering abandoning class and metaclass separation. Then I would not spend/lose my time to introduce support for ClassVariable if I would only focus on language independence. A side note you can ask the importer to **merge or not** since two years so what is the problem? You can decide for your experience what you want to do. Now reread my original question to understand what I was proposing.
Still you are not replying to my original question so I will do it the way I want but people should not complain that I did not try to have a discussion on the topic.
Stef
On Nov 8, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Michele Lanza wrote:
I understand where this is coming from (basically everybody [including myself] using Moose thinks that metaclasses are noise most of the time, and one of the first things you do, is to "remove" them from the model). However, if I think back to the possibly only major reverse engineering experience on a very large Smalltalk system (the MediaGenix system back in 2001) there we produced a couple of views only about the (dark) class side, one of the questions being "where have they gone meta in the system?".
The language independence is a valid argument, but following this line of thought there you have the reason why Java interfaces are still being modeled as classes where one has to use a couple of methods (e.g., isClass, etc.) to establish what they actually are.
Coming back to Smalltalk, it looks like one would be giving up on details that are there already, just for the sake of language independence. And yes, the views about the dark side could also be produced if the instance and class side are merged, it just takes a bit longer, and makes the creation/conception of such views less obvious.
Cheers
Michele
On 8-Nov-08, at 12:32 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
I think we should always merge the instance and class side. The reason is that I have never felt the need to have them separated in FAMIX, because analyses are usually meant to be language independent. Anyone else actually had a different experience?
Distinguishing between the types of methods and variables should be just enough, and we can kind of do it from a language independent point of view. I think that should be enough.
Also, if you have the instance/class sides separated you will certainly have different results for analyses than if you have them merged, regardless of what you do with the variables.
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 7, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Michele Lanza wrote:
> I'm not sure whether merging is the right way to go. One > argument > in > favor is that otherwise one ends up having a model full of > "empty" > metaclasses, as the large majority of metaclasses do not > implement > any > methods. Visually this results in a system complexity view with > dual > inheritance hierarchies. One argument against is that if a > metaclass > does implement methods, in the case of a merge, the metaclass > methods > would be mixed up with the "normal" methods (of course you would > still > be able to differentiate them within the model). Merging would > just > be > trying to make up one (of the very few) shortcoming(s) of > Smalltalk's > design. With respect to shared variables, that's another thing > that I > think is a bit overengineered.. > > Cheers > > Michele > > > On 7-Nov-08, at 8:42 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > >>>> As far as I can see, an analysis may depend on whether you >>>> merge >>>> classes and metaclasses. >>>> It seems hard to imagine than any analysis should be depend >>>> on >>>> whether >>>> there is such a merging. >>> >>> you mean independent? >>> If we have the same data represented the same way >>> independently >>> of >>> merging >>> we favor that an analysis code does have to have different >>> cases >>> based >>> on merging >>> or not? >> >> Maybe there is something I misunderstood. Merging classes and >> metaclasses when importing means that one single class will >> represent >> both the class and its metaclass I guess. >> This means that there will be twice less classes in a model. A >> system >> complexity view on a imported (using merging) smalltalk >> application >> will be different than the one with no merging. >> No? >> >> Alexandre >> >> >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Value is always contextual."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Being happy is a matter of choice."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
So I will reask my original question: annotated with stress and tests results so far.
I will implement the following and I would like to let you know so that you can give feedback
======= case one: when we do not merge a class and its metaclass the instance variable of a metaclass could have an instanceScope since it is true that the instance variable is an instance one.
(I checked in moose and class inst variable have a class scope in this situation. So we probably got this discussion long time ago.)
======= case two: Now when we merge a class and its metaclass, the class instance variable should have a class scope since from the base class it is clearly a class scope variable. (this is what we have in moose right now)
For shared this is simple they are shared and have a classScope.
Now from a user point of view I would like that an analysis does not depend on whether we merged or not the class and metaclass **from the instance variable scope point of view** -- Of course the analysis like system complexity depends on the merge or not, there is no magic--
So I will put classScope to instance variable of the metaclass even when they are not merged with the base class. (in fact I checked and this is already the case in current Moose implementation)
This way we always get the following situation
instance varaible -> instanceScope class instance variable -> classScope shared -> classScope + isShared
Let me know what you think since I will implement the following and write tests. (apparently this is already implemented like that more or less). So I will add some tests in SqMoose and port them to VWMoose with sharedVariableSupport (later for now I will focus on SqMoose).
Stef _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Ok, then it's decided :).
(indeed, we implemented class scope for attributes and methods from the class side when Adrian redid the importer)
Doru
On Nov 8, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
So I will reask my original question: annotated with stress and tests results so far.
I will implement the following and I would like to let you know so that you can give feedback
======= case one: when we do not merge a class and its metaclass the instance variable of a metaclass could have an instanceScope since it is true that the instance variable is an instance one.
(I checked in moose and class inst variable have a class scope in this situation. So we probably got this discussion long time ago.)
======= case two: Now when we merge a class and its metaclass, the class instance variable should have a class scope since from the base class it is clearly a class scope variable. (this is what we have in moose right now)
For shared this is simple they are shared and have a classScope.
Now from a user point of view I would like that an analysis does not depend on whether we merged or not the class and metaclass **from the instance variable scope point of view** -- Of course the analysis like system complexity depends on the merge or not, there is no magic--
So I will put classScope to instance variable of the metaclass even when they are not merged with the base class. (in fact I checked and this is already the case in current Moose implementation)
This way we always get the following situation
instance varaible -> instanceScope class instance variable -> classScope shared -> classScope + isShared
Let me know what you think since I will implement the following and write tests. (apparently this is already implemented like that more or less). So I will add some tests in SqMoose and port them to VWMoose with sharedVariableSupport (later for now I will focus on SqMoose).
Stef _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Presenting is storytelling."
Ok, then it's decided :).
Yes I should have checked before. I will fix then the merging and add the sharedVariable
(indeed, we implemented class scope for attributes and methods from the class side when Adrian redid the importer)
Doru
On Nov 8, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
So I will reask my original question: annotated with stress and tests results so far.
I will implement the following and I would like to let you know so that you can give feedback
======= case one: when we do not merge a class and its metaclass the instance variable of a metaclass could have an instanceScope since it is true that the instance variable is an instance one.
(I checked in moose and class inst variable have a class scope in this situation. So we probably got this discussion long time ago.)
======= case two: Now when we merge a class and its metaclass, the class instance variable should have a class scope since from the base class it is clearly a class scope variable. (this is what we have in moose right now)
For shared this is simple they are shared and have a classScope.
Now from a user point of view I would like that an analysis does not depend on whether we merged or not the class and metaclass **from the instance variable scope point of view** -- Of course the analysis like system complexity depends on the merge or not, there is no magic--
So I will put classScope to instance variable of the metaclass even when they are not merged with the base class. (in fact I checked and this is already the case in current Moose implementation)
This way we always get the following situation
instance varaible -> instanceScope class instance variable -> classScope shared -> classScope + isShared
Let me know what you think since I will implement the following and write tests. (apparently this is already implemented like that more or less). So I will add some tests in SqMoose and port them to VWMoose with sharedVariableSupport (later for now I will focus on SqMoose).
Stef _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Presenting is storytelling."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Michele
I agree with you. the starting point of my questions (which were stupid since this is nearly already like that in Moose) was about the stability of information in presence of merge/notmegre. Not to question the possibility of merge or not. (see my other post to doru feedback - I really need to be able to model class and metaclass easily just for example to have a simple model for mondrian hacking - as you said we could have the merge all the time but the dsitinction would imply more work. Now I want the importer to do the work for me).
Stef
On Nov 8, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Michele Lanza wrote:
I understand where this is coming from (basically everybody [including myself] using Moose thinks that metaclasses are noise most of the time, and one of the first things you do, is to "remove" them from the model). However, if I think back to the possibly only major reverse engineering experience on a very large Smalltalk system (the MediaGenix system back in 2001) there we produced a couple of views only about the (dark) class side, one of the questions being "where have they gone meta in the system?".
The language independence is a valid argument, but following this line of thought there you have the reason why Java interfaces are still being modeled as classes where one has to use a couple of methods (e.g., isClass, etc.) to establish what they actually are.
Coming back to Smalltalk, it looks like one would be giving up on details that are there already, just for the sake of language independence. And yes, the views about the dark side could also be produced if the instance and class side are merged, it just takes a bit longer, and makes the creation/conception of such views less obvious.
Cheers
Michele
On 8-Nov-08, at 12:32 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
I think we should always merge the instance and class side. The reason is that I have never felt the need to have them separated in FAMIX, because analyses are usually meant to be language independent. Anyone else actually had a different experience?
Distinguishing between the types of methods and variables should be just enough, and we can kind of do it from a language independent point of view. I think that should be enough.
Also, if you have the instance/class sides separated you will certainly have different results for analyses than if you have them merged, regardless of what you do with the variables.
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 7, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Michele Lanza wrote:
I'm not sure whether merging is the right way to go. One argument in favor is that otherwise one ends up having a model full of "empty" metaclasses, as the large majority of metaclasses do not implement any methods. Visually this results in a system complexity view with dual inheritance hierarchies. One argument against is that if a metaclass does implement methods, in the case of a merge, the metaclass methods would be mixed up with the "normal" methods (of course you would still be able to differentiate them within the model). Merging would just be trying to make up one (of the very few) shortcoming(s) of Smalltalk's design. With respect to shared variables, that's another thing that I think is a bit overengineered..
Cheers
Michele
On 7-Nov-08, at 8:42 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
As far as I can see, an analysis may depend on whether you merge classes and metaclasses. It seems hard to imagine than any analysis should be depend on whether there is such a merging.
you mean independent? If we have the same data represented the same way independently of merging we favor that an analysis code does have to have different cases based on merging or not?
Maybe there is something I misunderstood. Merging classes and metaclasses when importing means that one single class will represent both the class and its metaclass I guess. This means that there will be twice less classes in a model. A system complexity view on a imported (using merging) smalltalk application will be different than the one with no merging. No?
Alexandre
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Value is always contextual."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi guys
do you imagine that in fact the possibility to merge or not a class and metaclass is available since at least two years. So I do not really understand what you are talking about. Now I want to fix the lack of import of class variables and also a bug I found about instance variable of the class and the metaclass when merging.
Stef
Hi,
I think we should always merge the instance and class side. The reason is that I have never felt the need to have them separated in FAMIX, because analyses are usually meant to be language independent. Anyone else actually had a different experience?
Distinguishing between the types of methods and variables should be just enough, and we can kind of do it from a language independent point of view. I think that should be enough.
Also, if you have the instance/class sides separated you will certainly have different results for analyses than if you have them merged, regardless of what you do with the variables.
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 7, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Michele Lanza wrote:
I'm not sure whether merging is the right way to go. One argument in favor is that otherwise one ends up having a model full of "empty" metaclasses, as the large majority of metaclasses do not implement any methods. Visually this results in a system complexity view with dual inheritance hierarchies. One argument against is that if a metaclass does implement methods, in the case of a merge, the metaclass methods would be mixed up with the "normal" methods (of course you would still be able to differentiate them within the model). Merging would just be trying to make up one (of the very few) shortcoming(s) of Smalltalk's design. With respect to shared variables, that's another thing that I think is a bit overengineered..
Cheers
Michele
On 7-Nov-08, at 8:42 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
As far as I can see, an analysis may depend on whether you merge classes and metaclasses. It seems hard to imagine than any analysis should be depend on whether there is such a merging.
you mean independent? If we have the same data represented the same way independently of merging we favor that an analysis code does have to have different cases based on merging or not?
Maybe there is something I misunderstood. Merging classes and metaclasses when importing means that one single class will represent both the class and its metaclass I guess. This means that there will be twice less classes in a model. A system complexity view on a imported (using merging) smalltalk application will be different than the one with no merging. No?
Alexandre
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Value is always contextual."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
On Nov 7, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
As far as I can see, an analysis may depend on whether you merge classes and metaclasses. It seems hard to imagine than any analysis should be depend on whether there is such a merging.
you mean independent? If we have the same data represented the same way independently of merging we favor that an analysis code does have to have different cases based on merging or not?
Maybe there is something I misunderstood. Merging classes and metaclasses when importing means that one single class will represent both the class and its metaclass I guess.
Yes
This means that there will be twice less classes in a model.
It is already like that since two years you can ask whether you want to merge or not.
A system complexity view on a imported (using merging) smalltalk application will be different than the one with no merging.
Of course so what? It depends what you want to see.
When you look at packages dependency it makes sense to merge,
No?
Alexandre
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Michele Lanza -
stephane ducasse -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Tudor Girba