On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Chris Cunningham <[email protected]>wrote:
> If it is a compatibility layer, then now that Pharo has it's own #package, > shouldn't the Pharo version of Grease just not include it anymore? Once > the various Smalltalks start to implement what it is claiming it wants, the > compatibility layer for that dialect should change, I would think. So, > Seaside should still use #packages, but on Pharo, it gets the native > #packages results. > > This assumes that what Grease wants out of package is what Pharo provides > - and it is possible that Grease will need different compatibility > artifacts to make the Pharo results match what Grease expects. > > I would think from a Grease perspective, the ideal world is to have > nothing left in Grease at all because all of the dialects have implemented > everything they want, in at least the minimal way they wanted. As a step > towards that, having one dialect removing the need for Grease would also be > a big, happy step forward. > +1. > -cbc > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Stephan Eggermont <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Doru wrote: >> >This is clearly an issue of Grease. And it is not essential either as >> there are no senders to it. >> >> There are senders in Seaside. They look not so difficult to change. >> >> >So, I see no reason not to rename it in Grease. >> >> It is a compatibility layer, so you wouldn't be able to know looking only >> from Pharo. >> >> Stephan >> >> >> > -- best, Eliot
