Squeak and Namespaces

J J azreal1977 at hotmail.com
Fri Dec 1 16:46:46 UTC 2006


>From: Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se>
>Reply-To: goran at krampe.se, The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list"<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Subject: Re: Squeak and Namespaces
>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:16:14 +0100 (CET)
>
>Hi!
>
>I agree that simplicity/unification is good in principle. One problem
>would be that it would "force" us to have more namespaces than we actually
>need. For example, I think base Squeak should just be one namespace - the
>"Smalltalk one" which has no prefix.
>

Aha.  Ok, I missed this part somehow.  So the Kernel::Dictionary scenario 
doesn't have to happen (as long as we keep it simple), but the issue is 
still there for other more popular packages.  I guess I just see Smalltalk 
as it is right now as as beautiful as it can get. :)

_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from 
Microsoft Office Live 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list