[KCP] SystemDictionary cleaning: Comments and design

Stephane Ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Tue Jun 17 07:50:39 UTC 2003


On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 04:40 AM, Tim Rowledge wrote:

>
>> I would also like to hear his view about globals holding onto 
>> instances
>> of a class. Like "Smalltalk" holding a "SystemDictionary" and
>> "Transcript" holding a "TranscriptStream".
> Here's mine; having a singleton global strikes me as a bit pointless so
> gues I'd prefer for example to see a class called Smalltalk than a
> global called Smalltalk and its class SystemDictionary. On the other
> had, we can have many TranscriptStreams and so a generally accessible
> global Transcript is perfectly sensible.
>
> and from earlier mail:-
>> - "System fullNameForChanges:" is simpler than "Changes fullName:"
>> - "System fullNameForImage:" is simpler than "Image fullName:"
>> - "System listBuiltinModules" is simplar than: "BuiltinModules list"
>> - "System listLoadedModules" is simplar than: "LoadedModules list"
> Whilst I just about agree that having a class for Changes and one for
> Image is ok I really think that it is going too far to have
> LoadedModules and BuiltinModules. Those are examples where the mapping
> simply doesn't make sense. Something more like Image loadedPlugins and
> Image builtinPlugins would be a little more approachable.

I agree and nathanael too this was just to make a point.

> I know classes are pretty lightweight but let's not go down a path that
> ends up with One class and Two class and FortyTwo class etc.
>
Yup!



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list