Tim M | 14 May 01:32
Picon

Easy way to define new methods referenced in a method?

Is there an easy way to define methods when you reference them in a new method?

e.g. 

renderContentOn: html

  html heading: 'ToDo-List'.
  html div
  class: 'menu';
  with: self menuComponent.

When I save it warns me that menuComponent isn't defined but there is no 
option to define a stub method for it? So I simply select that its correct. 
Then in the new method there is no refactor operation to implement that method 
(in Dolphin I can select the AutoCorrect menu and there is a define method 
option - is there some addin for Squeak that does this? Or does everyone 
rely on having a test that calls the method and so you let the debugger define 
it?)

Tim
itsme213 | 14 May 03:17
Picon
Favicon

Re: Easy way to define new methods referenced in a method?

"Tim M" <365nice <at> gmail.com> wrote in message

> Or does everyone rely on having a test that calls the method and so you 
> let the debugger define it?)

I suspect there are smarter options ... but lint will catch many such 
errors. The latest dev images has the 'Environment' browser, which lets you 
browse just your 1 class, or your 1 class hierarchy, or your 1 package, ... 
and scope your lint checks accordingly. Right click in it and Open/Code 
Critics. Lukas Renggli's blog has a nice screen-cast demo.

Sophie 
Claus Kick | 14 May 16:46
Picon

Re: Easy way to define new methods referenced in a method?

Tim M wrote:
> Is there an easy way to define methods when you reference them in a new 
> method?
> 
> e.g.
> renderContentOn: html
> 
>  html heading: 'ToDo-List'.
>  html div
>  class: 'menu';
>  with: self menuComponent.
> 
> 
> When I save it warns me that menuComponent isn't defined but there is no 
> option to define a stub method for it? So I simply select that its 
> correct. Then in the new method there is no refactor operation to 
> implement that method (in Dolphin I can select the AutoCorrect menu and 
> there is a define method option - is there some addin for Squeak that 
> does this? Or does everyone rely on having a test that calls the method 
> and so you let the debugger define it?)

I would be grateful enough if I could tell the browser to ignore this 
error because I know what I am doing.

Gmane