Hi Doug,

> I'm not sure if I would go quite that far.  The KCP code is somewhat
> different than external packages like Magma.  With KCP, you're working
> on classes which will be at the core of Squeak, so I think it is good to
> not use gratuitous prefixes in the class names, because there's not
> really any worry about namespace clashes.  With an external package like
> Magma, using prefixes (e.g. MagmaCollection) may not be a bad idea,
> since there is a more real possibility of namespace clashes if you
> don't.  Within reason, of course.
>

    And please don't forget the vision that 'everything is a package'.

    Who knows, maybe with SM 2.0, 'Kernel Package' will be a reality.

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Way" <dway at riskmetrics.com>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: [KCP] SystemChangeNotifications: Current state and some code


> On Tuesday, Jul 15, 2003, at 10:25 Europe/Zurich, Brent Pinkney wrote:
>
> > One of the traditions of Smalltalk and Squeak in particular is that
> > class names do not describe their implementation or namespace.
> >
> > This exact issue has come up recently on the list with the
> > introduction of the Deprecation exception. That class was originally
> > called DeprecatedException. This, I hope you agree, does not match the
> > feel established by the ANSI exceptions: DivideByZero and
> > MessageNotUnderstood, Halt.  The mailing list seemed to agree and the
> > class was renemed to Deprecation.
> > ...
> >
> > PS. For this same reason, objects like SMObject and MagmaCollection
> > make me unhappy, despite their excellent functionality.
>
>
> Roel Wuyts wrote:
>
> > PS: Thanks for pointing out that it is one of the Squeak traditions to
> > not use prefixes for class names. This used to be the convention in
> > Smalltalk (at least in VisualWorks), to make it clear which code
> > belonged together when not seeing it in categories, and for avoiding
> > name clashes. I was not aware that this was changed in the meantime in
> > Squeak, even in the absence of namespaces.
>
>
> I'm not sure if I would go quite that far.  The KCP code is somewhat
> different than external packages like Magma.  With KCP, you're working
> on classes which will be at the core of Squeak, so I think it is good to
> not use gratuitous prefixes in the class names, because there's not
> really any worry about namespace clashes.  With an external package like
> Magma, using prefixes (e.g. MagmaCollection) may not be a bad idea,
> since there is a more real possibility of namespace clashes if you
> don't.  Within reason, of course.
>
> - Doug Way
>
>
>