>  > Is it true that fileIns, since they modify the VM, are  more like
>  > VM patches while plug-ins because they are separate, are real
>  > extensions?
>  > > So, apart from the nomenclature, are the roles for plug-ins versus
>  > fileIns distinct and clear? Should they be?
>
>OK.  The VM is the program, written in native machine language, that 
>boots up, puts up a window, and starts interpreting ST bytecodes. 
>The "image" file is a file which is loaded by the VM, represents all 
>Smalltalk objects in memory (sans those which are dynamically loaded 
>through "projects").  These objects include the code you think about 
>when you think about Smalltalk.
>
>Generally, your statement that File-Ins don't modify the VM is 
>wholly incorrect.  File-Ins are, basically, scripts that modify the 
>image.  They are usually compilations of Smalltalk source code to be 
>loaded in and compiled into bytecodes, and instructions for doing 
>that, but can also include scripts of Smalltalk code to be executed 
>for other reasons.  Theoretically, a script could modify the VM code 
>files, but that would be odd.  A script can, of course, change the 
>stored source code for the VM, so a new updated VM can be built, but 
>doesn't modify the currently running VM.  You are, of course, quite 
>correct that you cannot assume everyone has loaded any file-ins.

Oops. Darn.

Thank you. When I said "VM," I really meant "image." ;-P

--
    *************************************************
    Jeff Szuhay                <mailto:jeffs at pstnet.com>
    Lead Macintosh Engineer    voice: 412/271-5040 x 227
    Psychology Software Tools  <http://www.pstnet.com/>