Hi Scott,

On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Scott Wallace wrote:

> At 8:38 AM -0700 9/24/02, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> This noxious "You can't add Modules at the top level" roadblock
> probably explains, more than any other single thing, why a large
> percentage of the Squeak community, including most of our most
> illustrious and powerful members who until the arrival of Modules had
> *always* lived and worked in the leading-edge Squeak development
> system, have steered away from 3.3a.
>
> [Snipped excellent analysis of the reaction to 3.3a's module policy.]
>
> But then it turned out that much old code couldn't file in, so that
> even people with no interest in Modules, and with no perceived current
> need for them, could not go on about their business.

I think you're hitting the nail on the head here. We have a technical
policy difference that doesn't seamlessly "do the Right thing for
niewbies". A user interface that consists of an error message for 99% of
the Squeak contributors out there is the worst possible interface. If
Exceptions were employed, that would be another thing, but Exceptions
aren't integrated into Squeak's environment well enough.

> I attach FWIW a tiny workaround that has helped lower *my* blood
> pressure as I operate in 3.3a, since I have frequent need to load code
> written in earlier Squeaks.
>
> My solution does not modularize non-module-aware code, but it should
> at least allow you to *file in* your code.  Classes which previously
> generated the "You can't add Modules at the top level" error will now
> be graciously accepted and placed in submodules of People.  Once you
> have the code on board, you can proceed to use the Modules tools to
> make your code more module-savvy when and if you want to.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing feedback on this naive but expedient
> little hack.  Should it go into the image?  It does not deal with any
> potentially awkward issues, it just brings code in, rather than
> rejecting it, so that you can start working with it from within
> Squeak.
>
> Or would this be too much of an affront to the integrity of the
> Modules system?  Or does anyone care anymore?

I'd rather ask "Why wasn't this added before?". I definitely do care and
would like to see this policy incorporated.

> Cheers,
>
>  -- Scott

Thanks!
Brian Rice
~