Daniel Vainsencher <danielv at netvision.net.il> wrote:
> Hi Goran.
> 
> I pretty much agree with the consideration you raise, and a name like
> SqueakSession would fulfill that need without being overly generic.
> However, using the name Squeak (completely generic) for something quite
> specific and low level seems to me to be arbitrary and non intention
> revealing. Nobody would see Squeak and think "hey that must be where I
> check the vm parameters!". Also as I noted it is slated to have too many
> responsibilities. And such things have a tendency to grow.

Yes, we have been over that issue before - the "single place with lots
of method categories"-solution or a "class category with a class for
each area"-solution.

I tend to lean towards the latter KCPish solution simply because it will
be easier to separate classes from each other in packages compared to
methods.

Don't really care about the name - as long as we don't pick anything
that has a great chance of conflicting with other Smalltalks.

> But as I've said to Tim, if you think its good, approve it. Really,
> I don't have enough time to work with KCP on everything, that's why its
> getting posted publically. I also don't claim to have the "one true
> answer" - maybe you're right and I'm wrong.

I have no idea - I just wanted to bring up a little side of it all. :-)

> You're a harvester. 
> Participate.

I do participate. I just try to pick things I know more about.

Have you tried the 1.09beta I posted btw? I need some feedback on that
before releasing it. It does contain fixes to SM Package Loader too.

regards, Göran