Thanks Brian. I thought this might be it.

>
>On Saturday, Sep 27, 2003, at 18:05 America/Denver, Phil Hudson wrote:
>
>> Are generic/template/parameterized/typesafe collections available in
>> Smalltalk? I've had a look and can't see anything in the Squeak distro 
>> or
>> SqueakMap.
>
>Certainly not in the 'strongly-typed language' sense of it. :-)
>
>>
>> Or am I just not "getting it"? Is it just not "thinking in Smalltalk" 
>> to
>> insist on a type?
>>
>>
>>
>Yes, this is probably true. Maybe try thinking in terms of Vocabulary. 
>Since everything is a message sent to an  instance or class, then the 
>idea of "compatiple types" is determined by whether the the receiver of 
>the message understands the message. If class A understands all the 
>messages sent to it by class B, then they can be used in an 
>interchangeable way (in terms of message sends), and so can be thought 
>of as the same type. Of course, you can add methods to classes at will, 
>giving a class a larger and larger vocabulary, enabling it to be 'type 
>compatible' with many other classes.
>
>In summary, there is no type. Only messages. ;-)
>
>(I'm a relative newbie to OOP in general and Smalltalk specifically, 
>but this is the way my procedurally trained mind puts it into 
>perspective)
>
>I'm sure many of the other learned gentlemen on this list can explain 
>things more satisfactorily!
>
>Have fun!
>
>Brian
>
>
>
>