Henrik Gedenryd <h.gedenryd at open.ac.uk> wrote:
> danielv at netvision.net.il wrote:
> 
> > Yes, that's true, but I think, (Idon't know) that most of the modules in
> > the system now do not have proper declarations unless someone (Henrik)
> > has already readied them for removal. So the list is a reasonable
> > approximation (see * below).
> 
> The reason is that there isn't much point in declaring these until a module
> has been properly refactored. Until that point, its dependecies will look
> much like a random list of other modules in the image. You can use "module
> localUnresolvedRefsPerModule explore" to compute the implicit dependencies
> from the code in a module.
> 
> So when a module has been refactored, so that its complete list of
> dependencies "makes sense", then it also makes sense to declare the
> dependencies. 

I'd figured as much, and that's also how I did it. 
OTOH, tools could use preexisting dependency declarations to guide the
refactorings (suggest to move classes only to where they can move...).
But until we have the tools...

> > 1. Actually, I think Balloon3D is already supposed to unload as one of
> > the examples. Though it still doesn't for me.
> 
> Have you tried
> 
> http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/UnloadingModules
> 
> ? It seems to work for me.
> 
> Henrik
Yup, I was missing the delta module creation. Thanks.

Daniel