3.6 "full" packages
Michael Rueger
m.rueger at acm.org
Mon Jul 28 15:49:43 UTC 2003
Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> Michael Rueger <m.rueger at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>Just a cautious reminder from the module disaster:
>>
>>back at OOPSLA one of the main points was to "never" put a packaging
>>system into the base system again for all the reasons in the above
>>discussion.
>
> I missed the OOPSLA discussions, and maybe because of that I don't see
> how this statement is relevant to the relevant case. If I am missing
> some information, please let me know.
As I said, just cautious reminder :-)
The reason I wanted to remind people is that someone suggested to put a
minimal Monticello loader into the base image.
And I put the never in quotes for a reason :-)
>>The ability of Ginsu and Monticello to deal with a semantic model
>>without loading the code first still needs to know where the code
>>originally came from.
>
> What? I didn't understand this at all. Please define "where the code
> originally came from". Do you mean who the author is? or whether it is a
Which package and version etc. So if you load a generic st first and
then want to go to the packaged version you need to know which methods
belong to which package originally so can determine if anything has
changed in the meantime.
>>So how would a generic attributation of the
>>standard file out format work?
>>Assuming you don't want to extend something like the timestamp method.
>
> Maybe because of the above, I have no idea what you are talking about.
> AFAIU, nobody is talking about changing the standard file out format.
Actually we are. We need a way to attach attributes/semantic information
to the source code. Although it is possible with the current chunk
format it definitely isn't the best way to do it.
All this of course is MHO.
Well, maybe NSHO ;-)
Michael
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|