I'd vote for b) too, should make it easier than a) in the future to move
towards a separation of concerns like what was discussed.

Personally, I think some of the voters might be a bit mislead by the
points "compatible with Cuis" for a), and "different from Cuis" for b,
listed in the initial post.
Option b) is still _compatible_ with Cuis, only the _implementation_ is
different. (ie code like Smalltalk vmParameterAt: xyz will work with
both proposed solutions). Unless, of course,  I'm the one
misunderstanding :)

Cheers,
Henry

Den 03.03.2010 15:02, skrev Nicolas Cellier:
> 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
>
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Reply via email to