Roger wrote,

> Hi Dan,
>
> I'd be particularly interested in your thoughts about how block
> closures, and a number of related issues,
> are going to be integrated into Squeak .

    Apparently, Anthony's work ran into some troubles in debugging C codes
with a C debugger.

    It's a pity that the Interpreter Simulator is not working with Squeak
3.2, otherwise the interpreter could have been debugged in Slang codes with
the Squeak debugger. Isn't that the whole idea of writing the interpreter in
C-ized Smalltalk ?

    Besides, if a Squeak VM can not be debugged inside a Squeak image then
it's not Squeak anymore, right ?

> Also, there was another surge of interest
> in modules in June (305 messages) which seemed to have decayed off
> rather rapidly (49 messages in July and 6 messages in August).
> While everyone may be either on vacation or furiously writing code,
> I'd like to hear your thoughts on where the modules effort is
> headed, when it is likely to happen,
> and what the final (or interim) results are likely to look like.

    If by some miracles, the modularizing efforts fail, we can always fall
back to the latest and greatest Majorshrink script that Dan promised (?). I
believe that this latest and greatest script will give us the smallest
shrinked image we ever had.

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Vossler" <rvossler at qwest.net>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: [BUG?]Upgrading 3.2 to 3.3alpha


> Hi Dan,
>
> I'd be particularly interested in your thoughts about how block
> closures, and a number of related
> issues, are going to be integrated into Squeak and when. Also, there
> was another surge of interest
> in modules in June (305 messages) which seemed to have decayed off
> rather rapidly (49 messages
> in July and 6 messages in August). While everyone may be either on
> vacation or furiously writing
> code, I'd like to hear your thoughts on where the modules effort is
> headed, when it is likely to happen,
> and what the final (or interim) results are likely to look like.
> Comments from others would also be
> welcome.
>
> Cheers, Roger.....
>
> On Saturday, August 31, 2002, at 05:01 AM, Dan Ingalls wrote:
>
> > "Roger Vossler" <rvossler at qwest.net> asked...
> >
> >> I thought that Squeak Central was in control of the update process.
> >> Who exactly is the maintainer
> >> of the 3.2 fork and why did this fork take place? Is Squeak Central
> >> now out of the loop?
> >
> > Hi, Roger -
> >
> > Sorry about the misleading use of words.  That maintainer was me.  I
> > had originally worded my reply as though Andrew had been maintaining
> > his own image, and it said something like "you chose NO".  Then I
> > realized this is the case for any 3.2, so I changed it to this
> > impersonal reference to the election of the fork to 3.2 in update >
4653.
> >
> > And to answer the bigger question, no, SQC is not out of the loop (as
> > far as we know ;-).  On the contrary I expect various of us to be more
> > active again as we get into the fall.  I'll try to write down my
> > thoughts about some of the current activities and how they might play
> > together in a coherent manner as we go forward.
> >
> > - Dan
> > --------------------------
>
> [snip]
>
>
>