"Peter van Rooijen" <squeak at vanrooijen.com> wrote:
> From: <goran.krampe at bluefish.se>
> > "Peter van Rooijen" <squeak at vanrooijen.com> wrote:
> > > I want to get this bug in Squeaks shared
> > > variable binding fixed. Tim can joke about it all he likes, I don't
> mind. I
> > > am squarely opposed, however, to not fixing a major bug because Tim has
> > > never been bothered by the bug.
> >
> > Eh... now I think things are getting mixed up. I think I was the one
> > talking about "not been bothered" by the bug. And that was only
> > regarding doing a new release of 3.6. As I understand it Tim has never
> > been opposed to fix the bug (or has he?).
> 
> I don't know what his position is. My position is clear: I believe it is a
> bug, I want a fix incorporated in the disctibution, I have written a fix.
> 
> I am encouraged that you call it a 'bug' :-).

I would put it like this - if we indeed want to (as you put it) "bring
Squeak in line with the Smalltalk
shared variable scope rules" (ANSI) then it is a bug we should fix, and
so has Tim stated in his recent posts. But if the outcome is that we
instead want to have different behaviour in Squeak, then we need to do
something else.

Btw, I don't like discussions where selected arguments/pieces are
ignored - I stated clearly that Tim AFAIK has never said he hadn't been
bothered by the bug. He simply dislikes the whole mechanism of allowing
shadowing of globals. You simply elected to ignore that.

> [snip]
> 
> > No, of course not. I was simply reacting on your rather strong words
> > trying to get you guys to cool down. This list is a friendly list and we
> > try hard to keep it that way.
> 
> I'm all with you.
> 
> > I was referring the the "Hail Alans" etc, not anything else.
> 
> Exactly. I thought those remarks at that moment were too strong for this
> friendly list.

Peter, you are editing me out of context. I can't say how insanely much
I dislike that. In the previous paragraph I referred to *your* "rather
strong words" and not Tim's and you know it. You are trying to make it
look otherwise.

> > And again
> > you are assuming that Squeak is meant to be nothing more than a
> > "Smalltalk".
> 
> I'm not making that assumption. In fact, I haven't stated my reasons for
> wanting this behavior changed. Also, I don't remember anyone asking me why I
> wanted it.

I quote "Or is it the fact that I am trying to bring Squeak in line with
the Smalltalk
shared variable scope rules?".

And further:

"But would you really have others prevented from using a legitimate,
well-defined, Smalltalk construct, because you fear 'a major cognitive
clash', because 'our brains are not compilers'?"

And: 

"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."

All of these quotes imply strongly that you indeed are making such an
assumption and that was the reason for me bringing it onto the table.

If you are not, then ... well, you fooled me and should of course
disregard everything I said on *that* matter.

[SNIP]
> > > > Come on now guys, shake hands and let us continue. :-)
> > >
> > > If you want to continue, I suggest you test the fix and post your
> findings.
> >
> > I have no idea what you are implying by this last sentence.
> 
> I don't know that I'm implying anything.

Good.

I am dropping out of this discussion.

/Göran