<div dir="ltr">Sorry for the delay... I had some convoluted dependencies on the old methods that took me a while to untangle. All set now. Your proposed changes look good to me.</div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:55 AM Juan Vuletich <<a href="mailto:juan@jvuletich.org">juan@jvuletich.org</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 1/18/2020 8:07 PM, Phil B via Cuis-dev wrote: > Attached is a first cut of something I've wanted for a while: the > ability to capture method changes as they occur with the ability to > prevent them from happening if needed at a global level. Basically > it's just paired methods of #isOkTo[Compile|Remove]:meta: and > #note[Compilation|Removal]Of:meta:. > > It's always bothered me how central the method structure is yet > completely useless from the standpoint of having extensible > metadata... if I'm wrong re: extensibility, please let me know what > I've overlooked. So barring that, these changes allow for things like > helping to keep a separate metadata structure in sync with method > changes. The main requirement is to be able to track method adds, > changes and deletes to the image globally. Not sure, but I was > thinking that this facility might also be useful for refactoring tools. > > One issue / odd thing I noticed: the removal methods only get called > instance-side due to ClassDescription #removeSelector: only getting > called on instance methods and you have to jump up to the Behavior > implementor for class methods. That seems strange to me since method > compilation all appears to occur at the level of ClassDescription. Is > there a reason removals need to be different from compilation in this > way? (Not knowing the answer, I haven't fixed this issue in the > attached changeset) Hi Phil, folks, This is my proposal. When reviewing all this code, I found some dead code, and stuff crying for cleanup. Hence the attached #4035 and #4036. Then, I almost cloned your implementation of isOk, but with a different question for adding a new method than for modifying en existing one. I did #4037 with your initials, as it is your code after all. BTW, I don't quite get your last paragraph. Can you elaborate a bit on the issue, perhaps with steps to reproduce the offending behavior? If these changesets look ok for everybody, I'll push them to GitHub. Thanks, -- Juan Vuletich <a href="http://www.cuis-smalltalk.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.cuis-smalltalk.org</a> <a href="https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev</a> <a href="https://github.com/jvuletich" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/jvuletich</a> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3</a> @JuanVuletich </blockquote></div>