On 2/19/07, Alan Lovejoy <squeak-dev.sourcery at forum-mail.net> wrote:
>
>  Michael,
>
> I don't understand your issue.  You say you want to "get Namespaces out of
> an image."  What, precisely, do you mean by that? What's the connection
> between having namespaces and needing to change the location-of-record for
> method sources?  Shouldn't those two issues be indepedent of each other?
>

I have an image. In that image is a Namespace. I need to get that Namespace
and the source for the classes in that Namespace out of that image and in to
another image somehow - usually done using e.g. Monticello, filings stuff
out, etc.

The format for SqueakV9.sources, squeak.changes, changesets and file-outs
will have to change a bit if they were to support Namespaces. Rather than
changing the format, another option is to chuck everything out the window
and use a different system, such as keeping the source code and version
information in the image as Text objects. I'm just wanting people's opinions
on the technical merits of the options I mentioned in the root of this
thread.


Namespaces should do the following:
>
>     1) **Transparently** replace "shared pool dictionaries"; and
>
>     2) Enable "the same global name" to refer to different values in the
> context of different classes (or perhaps even different methods) without
> requiring any change to existing method sources or to the syntax of variable
> names (Namespaces should be completely orthogonal to syntactical issues,
> such as whether to enable "MyPackage.MyClass" or "MyPackage::MyClass" or
> "MyPackage#MyClass" as new syntax for referring to variables in specific
> namespaces.)
>

Ahh... yea... they do all that now. I haven't tested it yet though.

Michael.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20070219/b3ab65f5/attachment.htm