This is clearly an issue of Grease. And it is not essential either as there are no senders to it. So, I see no reason not to rename it in Grease.
Cheers, Doru On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected] > wrote: > +1 > I do not really get it because we mentioned that several times. > Grease maintainers should simply produce a new version and Seaside/users > should use this new version. > > > >> > > But *Grease* still is the problem: in the tradition of the wonderful > philosophy “Lets keep all smalltalk crappy > > and provide some layer on top”, it redefines #package and therefore > requires that no Smalltalk ever > > implements #packages on the class side to return the system concept of > package. > > > > What you need to find out: Why does Grease need a #package method? Is > there a GreasePackage class? > > What is it’s responsibility? wouldn’t it be good enough to have a > #gpackage method? > > > > In general, you should evaluate Grease and put all the *concepts* it > adds into Pharo itself. This way even > > the Core system can use them and everything gets better. > > > > Marcus > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
