My namespace proposal described in Yet Another Try

Ramon Leon ramon.leon at allresnet.com
Wed Sep 19 23:21:13 UTC 2007


> 
> This would mean that file-outs and Monticello packages would 
> contain "::", am I correct? In this case, we can't go back 
> because all source past that point can't be loaded by a 
> non-Göran image. 
> 
> Gulik. 

It wouldn't be a Goran image, it'd be a standard squeak image, since the
whole point would be to include that fix in the base image to allow us to at
least take one tiny step in the direction of a solution that formalizes what
we're *already doing with class prefixes*.  Why?  Because no one will accept
any other solution, look in the archives, this battles has been fought many
times.  

Any "real" namespaces solution will eventually be rejected because it's not
a small change and a vocal part of the community doesn't want it, just wait,
you'll see.

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list