Thank you for summarising.
It has been suggested that, as well as providing facilities to display and handle strings in differing languages and scripts, a programmer should be able to program in those langagues and scripts, ie a Chinese programmer should not be forced to program in English, but should be able to program in Chinese.
I think 'programming in English (or Chinese)' is somewhat misleading. We write programs in Smalltalk, which is defined in English terminology.
Some objections have been raised:
(1) This will lead to either (a) a mixed language image, which will be hard to read and maintain, or (b) several, incompatible, single-language versions of Squeak.
By observing what have been happening on mule-lisp programming, I don't worry this so much. When a person wanted to distribute his/her program world-wide, he/she wrote the program in ASCII.
Some very private or domestic program uses other 'scripts'. A good design is to relieve the obstacles for doing this as possible. But any kind of systematic keyword-to-keyword translation doesn't make sense.
OHSHIMA Yoshiki Dept. of Mathematical and Computing Sciences Tokyo Institute of Technology
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org