>>
>> Very good. Is it the same simpler traits as pharo?
>
>
> What's your point?

I write and maintain packages for users in both squeak and pharo,  
surely my point is obvious, I don't want extra work, and I dont want  
to have to maintain separate code bases.	 I was just hoping for a  
simple answer, "yes" would be good. I wasn't being cynical, I was just  
interested to know.

>  I responded to your false statement that the process "can only  
> build a monolithic image".  I'm not talking about cross-fork  
> compatibility here.

I can unload packages from any image with Sake/Packages, I dont need  
the trunk process for that, but lets see your process build an image  
without Monticello, or with Morphic3, or Rio instead of FileDirectory.

Basically you are not able to offer anything fundamentally different  
from what has gone before, I don't want File/Directory in my image I  
hate it with a passion. My entire motivation for hacking the core in  
the first place is to get rid of FileDirectory.

"Fail to plan plan to fail", I think the saying goes.

Keith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100121/85f914e6/attachment.htm