[chuck-users] feature ideas

[Kassen]

 mike clemow:

> I'm really into this idea too!  I really don't like that I can't
> overwrite a class definition.
>


I think this is to prevent worse issues. If you'd change your class's
member-function return types that would lead to serious issues with other
code that was already compiled using those. I think this matter is affected
by many (if not all?)of the issues affecting the updating of running code.

I have a suspicion we may need to demand that updated functions have to
stick to the same return type they were defined with. Adding stuff is
probably fine but removing any class members could also lead to issues with
code that depends on them.

I don't think it's even so clear how such things should be dealt with,
interface-wise. Maybe this will be where the real advantage of the Audicles
is. Perhaps a closer link between the VM and the edit buffers, for us to
indicate what we want and for the VM to indicate what our limitations are.

It might be a different matter for public classes that currently aren't
instantiated anywhere and that aren't referenced by any running code.

Yours,
Kas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20080621/fec2efa1/attachment.html>