Aha, I see.
Thank you both.
Do you mean a library with a new api by complete reimplementation of the
collection hierarchy? I'm asking because I don't understand a difference
between a refactoring (using traits) and a complete rewrite if library
protocol and user classes stay the same. Nathanael changed pretty everything
exept of public api - no?

Regards, 
  Danil

stephane ducasse wrote:
> 
> 
> On 14 mai 07, at 21:07, Damien Cassou wrote:
> 
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> I secretly dream of replacing the Stream hierarchy by Nile. But Nile
>> is far away from a possible replacement. This is because Nile does not
>> implement most of the methods that can be found in the Stream
>> hierarchy. Moreover, replacing the current hierarchy requires a
>> reimplementation of all subclasses of the class Stream. However, I
>> think the task is doable.
> 
> but we do not need it now :)
> We need a really cool stream library with a cool core and composable  
> abstractions.
> And Nile is that
>> If people want to help making Nile better,
>> feel free to join.
> 
> Indeed we need more clients of Nile to improve it.
> 
>> About the collection hierarchy, I think the replacement is not worth
>> it. This is because Nathanael refactored the hierarchy using traits
>> instead of completely reimplementing it. This was the right thing to
>> do at this time but I would prefer a completely new version, rewritten
>> from scratch as I did with Nile.
> 
> This would be a really experience. because we could get a small core  
> and all kind of possibilities.
>>
>> Does this answer all your questions ?
>>
>> 2007/5/14, danil osipchuk <danil at mtsnet.ru>:
>>>
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-Ann--Nile-0.8.0-available-tf3726678.html#a10637141
Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.