Tim is wildly believed to have scribed:

> Something more like
>
>         Image loadedPlugins
>
> and
>
>         Image builtinPlugins
>
> would be a little more approachable.

Ahem, does 'Image' care/know anything about
what plugins are builtin and what are loaded ?

Does Interpreter ? 

or maybe:

            PlugMan loadedPlugins
            PlugMan builtinPlugins
            ...
            thisPlugin := PlugMan gimmeThisPlugin: 'ThisPlugin'

then

            thisPlugin version
            thisPlugin maintainer
            thisPlugin homeUrl
            ...

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.

    P.S: And if the plugins manager is really doing his job,
            one should be able to ask:

                PlugMan stuckins
    and
                thisPlugin rUReallyPluginOrStuckinInDisguise?

    ;-)


> 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.

    Unless it is anticipated to give to each of these classes more
responsiblities.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Rowledge" <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 10:40 PM
Subject: RE: [KCP] SystemDictionary cleaning: Comments and design


>
> > 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 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.
>
> tim
> --
> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> Strange OpCodes: IAI: Ignore All Instructions
>