Re: SmallTalk-like Message browser

This looks really interesting, but I confess that some of the output I'm receiving doesn't seem to make sense. I see modules which appear to be completely unrelated, even when I dig through the code, but the output suggests otherwise. Could you possibly explain how to interpret the output?

Cheers,
Ovid

New address of my CGI Course.

Comment on Re: SmallTalk-like Message browser

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: SmallTalk-like Message browser by rhesa (Vicar) on Jul 05, 2007 at 12:26 UTC
The output roughly means the following: `--- <filename>: <subname>: called from: <filename>:<subname>: <this many times>` [download] The reason you're seeing odd results is a limitation of static analysis. If you have two packages with identically named methods, then their usage gets lumped together. That is, `One->new` and `Two->new` are grouped, and count as two calls to `new`. Read more... A small example to demonstrate (720 Bytes) I don't think you can get meaningful results unless you have an interactive environment -- like Squeak -- that can track the class of the invocant. Still, this is a nice approximation. As long as you keep the limitations in mind, it can be quite useful.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: SmallTalk-like Message browser by jdporter (Chancellor) on Jul 05, 2007 at 12:43 UTC
`s/invocant/receiver/`	[reply]
Re^3: SmallTalk-like Message browser by diotalevi (Canon) on Jul 05, 2007 at 15:07 UTC
I haven't seen how I can get Squeak's browser to decide which senders of "new" are the relevant senders. I've been of the opinion that it also punts on the subject of allomorphism. I figure that if ST punts, I'm ok to do so also. ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊	[reply]


Just another Perl shrine
	PerlMonks

Re: SmallTalk-like Message browser

s/invocant/receiver/

`s/invocant/receiver/`