On Dec 12, 2013, at 7:21 PM, Chris Cunningham <cunningham...@gmail.com> 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 is exactly the point. > 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. Exactly!!!!
