> Regarding:  "1.  Establish Package.Name as an alternate form of global
> reference."
> 
> Hi Dan & co.  
> 
> How would/could this scheme handle loose methods?  I have been thinking
> for a while now that Squeak could benefit from VSE's concept of loose
> methods (you load 'em in if you want 'em; they live seperate from the
> classes they belong to).
> 
> I'd also like to see the cluster & package concept in Squeak.  In VSE, a
> cluster can hold package(s) and other cluster(s).  This is a useful
> structuring facility.  You keep your "application specific classes"
> together to provide for a more useful "self documenting" source tree.
> 
> For example, I might suggest a Balloon cluster that would hold the
> following Squeak 2.3 packages:
> 
> Balloon-Geometry
> Balloon-Fills
> Balloon-Collections
> Balloon-Simulation
> Balloon-Engine
> 
> With a more powerful class grouping mechanism, and with the ability to add
> / remove loose methods from an image by loading or unloading a package or
> cluster, I think that it would be easier to create applications and
> application specific code.  It certainly would cut down on the amount of
> "chaff" methods in Object, for example.  If your application needed a
> bunch of Object level methods, these would not have to be included in the
> "base" image.  They could be loaded in when the application specific code
> was loaded.
> 
> ---==> Chris
> 
> 
>