Modules at SqueakEnd (Re: Is BC worth the image format switch?)

Bijan Parsia bparsia at email.unc.edu
Wed May 1 16:22:42 UTC 2002


On Wed, 1 May 2002, Henrik Gedenryd wrote:
[snip]
> I think Stephane has an important point here. Especially Anthony should work
> closely with SqC, in particular Dan, to make sure that the BC code is ok and
> clear for integration into V4.

Is there really any reason to think that this isn't happening? Tim seems
to be on the ball with V4.

Changing the image format is a *huge* change, after all.

[snip]
> Now if only the dozens of people who promised to help with the modules would
> actually make good on their promises, then things would look really good.

IIRC, I only promises to kvetch and complain no matter *what* design was
put forth. I admit that I've failed on this front but I'm sure that's not
a problem :)

SqueakEnd is nigh. Dan will be giving a talk about modules. There are some
projects for modularizing chunks. Hacking will happen. A prep list of
Tasks To Do would likely stimulate some work.

One question I have is about what happens if you do the little "replace
the pool&category part of the class definition with module ref" on a
change set...do the things filed in end up inside the mentioned modules?

Is it worth setting up a more sophsticated mapping from old categories to
new modules so we can more painlessly file in old stuff? Any hints on how
to do this? :)

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list