----- Original Message ----- 
From: David Simmons <David.Simmons at smallscript.com>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Cc: 'Dan Ingalls' <Dan at SqueakLand.org>; 'Doug Way' <dway at riskmetrics.com>; 'scott' <scott at SqueakLand.org>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:42 AM
Subject: Namespace and Module Discussion


> Hi All,
> 
> Is it too late to have a hearty discussion here on the squeak discussion
> group regarding namespaces and modules?
> I.e., have the plans for squeak been cast in stone. I've briefly read
> some of the module and namespace discussions on the Wiki.
> If not then I would like to try and participate in a discussion on this
> area with the goal being to strive for some level of compatibility with
> existing Smalltalk implementations of namespaces, modules, etc...

I think that this would be a worthwhile discussion, since it would be rather nice for there to exist a fair degree of inter-operability among the various Smalltalk dialects.  Currently, namespaces and modules are evolving separately in each dialect.  In the long term, this could be a problem for the overall health of the Smalltalk community.  In the short term, this gives us different approaches with varying strengths and weaknesses, and in that sense could prove to be a good thing as we see how well each works in practice.

> I would add that this is area where simplicity is truly elegance in the
> best sense of Smalltalk's philosophy. But it is equally an area where
> recognizing synergies and making the right steps for achieving
> simplicity can be a hard thing to get right.

I whole-heartedly agree with you on this point.  It remains to be seen how this experiment will turn out in Squeak, but it is underway nonetheless.

- les