Lex Spoon wrote:
>>> Perhaps we should go all the way, though, and explore nested
>>> classes.

Michael van der Gulik wrote:
>> Nested classes? What do you mean? Are you talking about nested
>> Namespaces (org.squeak.kernel.numbers.SmallInteger)?

Matej Kosik wrote:
> Have you read papers about E? Have you read Mark Miller's dissertation?
> http://www.erights.org/talks/thesis/index.html
> <http://www.erights.org/talks/thesis/index.html>

Michael van der Gulik wrote:
> His dissertation does not contain the phrase "nested class". I've just 
> searched through it.


 From section 6.4:
 > Any imperative language with lexically nested object definitions, including
 > Smalltalk's blocks, T [RA82], Beta [Mad00], Java's inner classes, and
 > Emerald [HRB+87] covered briefly in Related Work Section 24.6, supports the
 > easy definition of multiple facets sharing state.

In any case, the point in not inner/nested classes per se. The point is 
lexically nested object definitions.

-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

     Cheers,
     --MarkM