ungar at me.com
Sat Jul 23 15:01:03 UTC 2016
For higher level comments than individual objects, how about comments on name space objects? For instance globals? If you want a comment on a category, you could use a separate parent object instead.
- David (from iPad, typos likely)
> On Jul 22, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Russell Allen mail at russell-allen.com [self-interest] <self-interest at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> I first used Squeak 1.x and the system browse was enough for me to discover the system. Modern Pharo scares me though. The tools haven't scaled.
> Sent from my phone
>> On 23 Jul 2016, at 2:06 PM, 'Jason Grossman' spam-me at xeny.net [self-interest] <self-interest at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>> Yes, excellent.
>> And then there's also stuff that's even more high level than that.
>> For example, when I look through the object systems of Pharo or even the
>> relatively small Io, I find a mixture of things that are intended for
>> widespread use and things that are intended for niche uses, for lots of
>> reasons (e.g. they're experimental, or they're optimised for only
>> certain cases, or they're badly optimised but get correct results in
>> corner cases, or they can talk to other obsolete systems, or ...). This
>> can be shown in the internal documentation of the objects and sometime
>> is (not always - grrr), but that's not where it's most useful, is it? I
>> want to know before I start exploring which objects I should consider
>> On 23 Jul 2016, at 14:01, David Ungar ungar at me.com [self-interest]
>> > Sure, no argument there. Someone had written about parameter type
>> > comments. Self objects and slots can have comments in their
>> > annotations. Easy enough to write some reflective code to compile it,
>> > search it, etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Self-interest