Colin Putney <cputney at wiresong.ca> wrote:
> Quoting goran.krampe at bluefish.se:
> 
> > Colin? Forgive me?
> 
> Sure, no problem.
> 
> For me, the crux of the issue is that I really don't like the idea of
> "rendering" the source differently in different contexts. I don't use pretty
> printers for the same reason. That's not to say that there's no merit in
> alternate ways of viewing and manipulating code, but that's not really what
> your proposing.

Well, I just found it to be the simplest and in many ways most elegant
way of solving the issue with "long unreadable names". :)

> I think this boils down to slightly different goals again. As far as I can tell,
> you're mostly concerned with allowing packages to peacefully co-exist, with
> minimal changes to the existing system. 

Yes. Or at least minimal changes to how Squeak feels. The exact amount
of code that needs to be changed is less important - even though I am
almost finished with my code and it turns out pretty small and neat.

> I guess my proposal is slighly more forward looking in that I also want to make
> it easier to do "alternate universe" kinds of development as Andreas has done
> with Tweak and Croquet. I would really like those kinds of projects to happen
> in the space of normal Squeak development - to be packages rather than forks
> that have to be reintegrated at some point in the future. I fully admit that's
> driven by self interest - I see OmniBrowser and Monticello going down that road
> and I want to prevent it if I can.

I see. Well, personally I am not sure that say Classboxes (though I
haven't looked at it really) is something that would work in "normal
Squeak". I hope that I am proven wrong, and perhaps regarding Traits too
- but I have come more and more to appreciate simple solutions.

Perhaps these "alternate universe"-kinda ultracool but pretty advanced
things aren't really something that the average Squeaker can or want to
handle? Well, you know what I mean.

> Colin

regards, Göran