Sorry to open a new thread, but here is my own position. Cheers
Nicolas ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nicolas Cellier <[email protected]> Date: 2010/3/3 Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: SmalltalkImage current vs. Smalltalk To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <[email protected]> 2010/3/3 Andreas Raab <[email protected]>: > On 3/2/2010 10:14 PM, Michael Haupt wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Am 03.03.2010 um 03:41 schrieb Andreas Raab <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Consequently I'm going to completely ignore any forward-looking >>> proposals and simply state that the current count is 3 votes for the >>> first variant (Phil, David, Bert) and 1 vote for the second variant >>> (Igor). >> >> here's another for "Smalltalk", then. > > That choice doesn't exist :-) You can vote for: > > a) Smalltalk class == SystemDictionary, or > > b) Smalltalk class == SmalltalkImage > > Cheers, > - Andreas > > I vote for b). After discussing this with Stephane Ducasse, I quite agree on this scheme: SmalltalkImage should better be renamed System. System soleInstance = Smalltalk. Of course an optional bakward compatibility module would define SmalltalkImage current Smalltalk globals or Smalltalk namespace class = SystemDictionary Maybe SystemDictionary shouldbetter be renamed Namespace to separate the notion of System. Then, if we are in need of separating methods, create new classes SmalltalkVM etc... But don't impose that in Kernel code, use methods indirections (Smalltalk vm blah...) This is a bit harder path than a), but lot cleaner IMO Nicolas _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
