>
> Igor:
> I don't agree in full regarding globals. IMHO it is not a solution to "get
> rid of them". The globals are our common namespace. It is the basis for
> our communication and interoperation. When I say Socket - you know what I
> mean.
That's the point!
And see the problem, we now saying Socket in Squeak-dev , Socket in
Croquet, Socket in here, Socket in there.
And this pattern tends to stay! So, why not just make it work?
Why not having packages be the only globals in the image. Why not
support package dependencies in image?

An example:
- i create a package which uses Collections, but since i don't like
something in it, i want to rewrite/hack stuff.
But instead of putting changes in Collections, i keep them in my
package. And since any references to Collection, Dictionary e.t.c in
my classes going through my package class table i finish with using my
modified versions and not interfere with other independent packages in
system which use Collections too.
At any time i can promote my changes upstream (if they found
acceptable), and this is just few clicks away. But before that i can
live with my own version of Collections without any risk of getting in
trouble when use different packages.

> And as you also pointed out earlier - analyzing globals is an
> efficient basis for figuring out dependencies automatically. So I want to
> keep them - possibly amended with my "prefixes improved" approach - but I
> am not pushing that! DeltaStreams etc is meant to work in all major Squeak
> forks and I don't see them all dumping globals any time soon. :)
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.