On Nov 26, 2004, at 4:27 AM, Trygve Reenskaug wrote:

> Stef,
> A bad idea, IMO. A namespace should be a place for mapping names to 
> objects, the behavior kind is a special case.

This argument seems unconvincing to me.  The behavior kind may be a 
special case, but in practice it is probably 99%+ of the actual uses in 
Squeak.  This creates the expectation that an unfamiliar capitalized 
name in some code is going to be a class.  (Not counting class 
variables.)

You get a significant benefit in readability/clarity/uniformity of code 
if you know that all of these capitalized names are classes, with 
"Smalltalk" as the only exception.

And of course you still have global variables in a sense if you still 
allow access through the Smalltalk global dictionary. (e.g. "Smalltalk 
transcript")  They just become a teeny bit less convenient, which seems 
appropriate to me... the less common usage should be more verbose, and 
the more common usage should be less verbose.

I don't know... it just seems that it's probably worth getting rid of a 
language feature that is relatively little used and so easy to replace 
with other mechanisms.  This ain't C++, after all. ;) ;) ;)

So Stef, you have my vote to proceed. :)

Although I admit I haven't thought deeply about how a real namespace 
mechanism (such as Goran's or something like classboxes) would affect 
all of this.

- Doug



> In UML, a *component* is a model element that encapsulates other 
> elements, its named parts. In BabyUML, a component is an object that 
> encapsulates a number objects, its named parts. This component maps 
> names to parts in a private namespace.
>
> In general, I feel that we do not get the full benefit of object 
> orientation by exclusively focusing on classes and class structures. 
> This was a weakness of early UMLs, it is also a weakness of current 
> Smalltalks.
>
> So let namespaces bind names to objects in general. Your work on 
> multiple workspaces opens vistas of different kinds of system 
> modularization, their namespaces will contain many interesting objects 
> the like of which are not found in the current Smalltalk dictionary.
>
> Cheers
> --Trygve
>
> At 25.11.2004 16:43, you wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I wanted to get feedback about the idea of removing global variables 
>> in Smalltalk.
>> The fact that system dictionary or a namespace can contain variable 
>> ie (a binding to something else than a class)
>> makes the code quite ugly since we have to always test if this is a 
>> class or not.
>>
>> I think that we could easily remove the possibility to have global 
>> variable and move the ones we have into
>> classVariable of Smalltalk or appropriate classes. This would lead to 
>> a more modular system.
>>
>>
>>
>> Smalltalk keysAndValuesDo: [:k :v | v isBehavior ifFalse: [Transcript 
>> show: k ; cr]]
>>
>> ImageImports
>> Display
>> ScheduledControllers
>> ScriptingSystem
>> Smalltalk
>> CustomEventsRegistry
>> World
>> SystemOrganization
>> References
>> ActiveHand
>> Transcript
>> Undeclared
>> SourceFiles
>> Processor
>> ActiveWorld
>> TextConstants
>> Sensor
>> ActiveEvent
>>
>> Now we would have to type Smalltalk transcript instead of Transcript.
>>
>> Any thoughts.
>>
>> Stef
>>
>> PS: Backward compatibility is not a reason since we are about 
>> inventing the future not the past
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Trygve Reenskaug      mailto: trygver <at> ifi.uio.no
> Morgedalsvn. 5A       http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver
> N-0378 Oslo           Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
> Norway
>
>
>