>>> The question is: can I get away with not including either of
>>> these files in an installation where some classes/methods will be
>>> re-compiled via update streams?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>> Is there some hidden necessity to having these two files present
>>> in the installation?
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> You might want to look at the Squeakland distribution, it does not
>> include source files either.
>>
>
> Before relying on this, it would be advisable to remove your source
> files and *then* recompile the entire system (...recompileAll...).
> This should work fine, but I don't know that current maintainers do
> this kind of stress test (it is demanding of the decompiler) at
> every release.
>
> - Dan
>
Hm. I start seeing syntax errors as soon as I get into Tweak classes.
Worked when sources/changes were in place (it's the missing changes
file).
The errors are on Tweak annotations like:
CAssignmentTileCostume>>onPropertyChanged
<on:in:: #(#propertyChanged #player)>
self player property borderStyle: #none.
self signal: #updateEverything
(second line gets: <on:in> expected ->:: #(#propertyChanged #player)> )
With the Changes file in place, I see:
onPropertyChanged
<on:in:: #(#propertyChanged #player)>
self player property borderStyle: #none.
self signal: #updateEverything
So, it seems the changes file is providing some annotation syntaxia
that goes missing without it, making annotated Tweak classes un-
compilable.
Seems to be happy without Sources, however. Thanks for the tip: this
averted a bad decision.
-- Eric
