It's quite simple: There's not enough attention span to go around to cover or meaningfully debate any interesting ideas on this list. It's taxing just to follow ODBC discussions, let alone try to appreciate everyone's opinion and solution on global namespace structure.
On Nov 30, 2004, at 1:43 AM, goran.krampe@bluefish.se wrote:
Hi people!
Just curious about the total lack of feedback on my post in this thread where I showed how my Namespaces could handle this. :)
regards, Göran
-- Brian T. Rice LOGOS Research and Development http://tunes.org/~water/
On Nov 30, 2004, at 1:43 AM, goran.krampe@bluefish.se wrote:
Just curious about the total lack of feedback on my post in this thread where I showed how my Namespaces could handle this. :)
Brian Rice wrote:
It's quite simple: There's not enough attention span to go around to cover or meaningfully debate any interesting ideas on this list. It's taxing just to follow ODBC discussions, let alone try to appreciate everyone's opinion and solution on global namespace structure.
Why so cynical, Brian?
My own guess is that the last discussion we had on Namespaces was so long, impassioned, exhausting, and ultimately inconclusive that no one wants to get drawn into another one, particularly since there's nothing new to talk about.
Colin
My own guess is that the last discussion we had on Namespaces was so long, impassioned, exhausting, and ultimately inconclusive that no one wants to get drawn into another one, particularly since there's nothing new to talk about.
The issue wasn't even remotely addressed by the namespace proposal. To sum up that part of the discussion it seems that two lines of code could "fix" the issue:
Object classPool: Smalltalk. Smalltalk := nil.
Duh. No namespaces, no globals, no nothing. Now what? Have we significantly improved the situation? I don't think so. "Removing globals" without addressing what class variables and pools mean is a pretty useless exercise. And the namespace discussion is orthogonal to it.
Cheers, - Andreas
Duh. No namespaces, no globals, no nothing. Now what? Have we significantly improved the situation? I don't think so. "Removing globals" without addressing what class variables and pools mean is a pretty useless exercise. And the namespace discussion is orthogonal to it.
I should really dive into the compiler because this was obvious that if I would know it better this would have been obvious to me. So at least I learn something. Thanks to kick me. This is all these old discussion about classVariables and Pool and variableBinding that I should reload in my memory.
Thanks for the point. Stef
Hi Stef,
Oops, no kicking intended. The problem of removing (or replacing) global variables is a good one but one that doesn't stop at the point of removing Smalltalk and moving the bindings into Object or some other place. The point is that Smalltalk is a "name for the environment" that a class lives in and removing the "global" doesn't remove the environment - just its name.
Cheers, - Andreas
----- Original Message ----- From: "stéphane ducasse" ducasse@iam.unibe.ch To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 10:13 PM Subject: Re: About removing global variables
Duh. No namespaces, no globals, no nothing. Now what? Have we significantly improved the situation? I don't think so. "Removing globals" without addressing what class variables and pools mean is a pretty useless exercise. And the namespace discussion is orthogonal to it.
I should really dive into the compiler because this was obvious that if I would know it better this would have been obvious to me. So at least I learn something. Thanks to kick me. This is all these old discussion about classVariables and Pool and variableBinding that I should reload in my memory.
Thanks for the point. Stef
Hi Stef,
Oops, no kicking intended.
No problem this was just for my ego :) And I sincerly asked because I was in the mud of SystemDictionary and other...
The problem of removing (or replacing) global variables is a good one but one that doesn't stop at the point of removing Smalltalk and moving the bindings into Object or some other place. The point is that Smalltalk is a "name for the environment" that a class lives in and removing the "global" doesn't remove the environment - just its name.
Of course.. :) Still I want to check how classVar are handled.
Cheers,
- Andreas
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org