[Pharo-project] Issue 2560 : Convenient methods from Grease for Strings

Stéphane Ducasse stephane.ducasse at inria.fr
Mon Jun 21 21:25:54 CEST 2010

yes I understand

On Jun 21, 2010, at 8:18 PM, Julian Fitzell wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Michael Roberts <mike at mjr104.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 21 Jun 2010, at 14:30, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse at inria.fr>
>> wrote:
>>> but do we want all grease?
>> Well. Not sure. Grease core is not that big. It has other useful stuff in. I
>> was in part commenting on the philosophy markus was referring to. I have a
>> different point of view.   If we just copy the extensions we have to
>> maintain our own branch. And we can not use any extensions that reference
>> grease classes. Then what happens if we really want an extension like that?
>> We copy classes too?that would not make a lot of sense to me.
>> So what do you think?
> Philosophically, Grease does not desire to provide implementation but
> tests of available functionality. The tests are common to all
> platforms and it is up to the platforms to ensure the tests pass. The
> ideal is that each platform simply provides the needed functionality
> (that's why we try to keep the size of Grease relatively small) and
> that in cases where they do not wish to do so they will provide a
> platform-specific Grease package that provides the functionality.
> The question here is regarding methods that we have provided in our
> Pharo-specific Grease package and whether some or all of them should
> be moved under Pharo's responsibility instead. As with all the other
> platforms, I encourage the adoption of Grease extensions that are
> considered generally useful and sane. Having these methods managed as
> part of the Pharo process means that the correct version will always
> be available in each Pharo release and that the methods are more
> widely available for use.
> It seems like the specific methods in question are currently in
> Grease-Core instead of Grease-Pharo-Core and I agree this is probably
> not ideal (I'll respond separately to Dale's email about this).
> Assuming they were in Grease-Pharo-Core, though, it would be a matter
> of *moving* them into Pharo, not *copying* them (with the added
> wrinkle of dealing with different Pharo versions, some of which have
> them and some of which do not).
> Julian
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> Pharo-project at lists.gforge.inria.fr
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

More information about the Pharo-project mailing list