[FIX] ClassVarsFix-petervr (was: Sharedvariablesbinding/lookupbug)

ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Mon Oct 13 15:44:34 UTC 2003


Hi

I think that in any cases it would be nice to have a bunch of tests to 
show the specificity of Squeak, if
you decide to keep it. This is fun because I was not aware of this dark 
aspect of Smalltalk :)

Stef

On Lundi, oct 13, 2003, at 10:58 Europe/Zurich, 
goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:

> Hi guys!
>
> "Peter van Rooijen" <squeak at vanrooijen.com> wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> Tim, I understand your example and I don't disagree that there is a
>> potential for confusion. But this is just how Smalltalk is 
>> constructed.
>> Classes are namespaces for their descendents. That Squeak hasn't 
>> correctly
>> implemented this part of what Smalltalk is, does nothing to change 
>> this.
>
> First of all - I am on Tim's side on this. I find shadowing to be a
> "shady business" altogether for all reasons stated. :-) Then, exactly
> what different kinds of shadowing we have/allow, what you can control 
> as
> an author, when and how the system should warn/barf/shout etc - that is
> a different story. Don't intend to go there.
>
> BUT... (finally getting to my *only* point of this post) the above text
> clearly shows what I consider to be two different views on what Squeak
> is/should be.
>
> I think Tim views Squeak as a Smalltalk-derivative that, even though it
> currently is very "Smalltalk compliant", not at all *needs* to be and
> probably will evolve more and more away from the ANSI Smalltalk 
> standard
> (this is by definition since the ANSI standard is staying put).
>
> I may of course be wrong in this and I rely on Tim in that case telling
> me in his own special way. :-)
>
> Now - this is *my* opinion:
>
> Squeak is currently very close to Smalltalk-80 and the ANSI standard.
> But that is not the goal. IMHO Smalltalk is a very good
> language/environment - but it is after all a *dead* language if we look
> at the ANSI standard - it is not evolving. Of course Smalltalk
> compatibility is a good thing, but IMHO *only* when it doesn't hinder 
> us
> from evolving Squeak into the future.
>
> And I actually think Alan agrees on this too.
>
> regards, Göran
>



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list