Re: [Help-smalltalk] Anyone willing to maintain the Squeak port of Iliad?

[Nicolas Petton]

Le vendredi 20 novembre 2009 à 01:07 +0100, Paolo Bonzini a écrit :
> On 11/20/2009 01:04 AM, Nicolas Petton wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Maintaining two versions of Iliad takes some time me and seb don't
> > really have, but OTHO we don't want the Squeak/Pharo port to die.
> >
> > So, you there be someone who knows Squeak willing to maintain the Squeak
> > port?
> 
> I think it doesn't work out unless you make a list of:

Yes, I would have come up with more details eventually if someone was
interested, but you're right :)

> 
> 1) what classes are different and why

Except for the encoder, the code is basically the same. Things like
files handling, TimeStamp/DateTime are different, but using rewrite
scripts make the conversion easier.

> 
> 2) how the coding standards for Iliad help portability

We try to keep incompatible code in one and only one place. For example,
the FileHandler is responsible for dealing with static files, and
outside of the class there is no incompatibility with files.

Also, we try to avoid incompatible code between dialects, and if there
is, we use a convention. For instance every direct subclass of Object
overrides the class method #new to call #initialize on instance
creation, even if this means adding an empty #initialize method.

> 
> 3) if you can use some kind of rewrite expression to achieve most of the 
> result.

Yes, I guess that's possible, thanks to gst-convert, with a script like
this one:
http://smalltalk.gnu.org/faq/169
but doing the opposite.

> 
> Deciding on the namespace vs. prefix issue will also help figuring out 
> how to automate the conversion as much as possible.

We decided to add the "IL" prefix to the classes of the gst version. We
will keep the namespace, though.


Also, as of today the Squeak port is up-to-date.

Cheers!

Nico

signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée