2009/3/1 edgar De Cleene <edgardec2001 at yahoo.com.ar>:
>
>> My suggestion is that only an image which includes standard
>> packages alone should be called a core image (and then only
>> if one is needed? Would it be needed?). I'd reserve the
>> term kernel image for the types of images Eliot and others
>> are discussing.
>>
>> - Zulq
>
> All images discussed here have some kind of trouble.
> And yes, I agree on standard packages as several mentioned before.
> But again I ask going forward and think about a Class repository as I using for reloading all "missed classes" when some .morph or .pr coming of different fork is dragged and drop or selected via file list in SqueakLightII.
>
> This Class repository could be easily produced for any fork.
> We could agree on the common ground between forks and could be easier fix or improve the code of only a Class and not of a bigger package.
>
> And a script for generate a valid image could load from this Class repository , like others Smalltalks do
>
So, in this repository a most simple brick is a class?
How it could deal then with extension methods, or overrides?
If you add code which handling them, eventually you will get similar
thing to MC :) So, what the difference?

> Edgar
>
>
>      Yahoo! Cocina
> Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
> http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
>
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.