On 8 April 2011 13:22, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 4/8/2011 11:45, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> On 8 April 2011 01:55, Casey Ransberger<casey.obrien.r at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> IMHO fake packages are awful.
>
> They are better than no packages.
>
>> I dreaming that some day we could do stuff like:
>>
>> newClass := Object subclass: #Foo.
>>
>> myPackage add: newClass.
>> myPackage add: (Object>>#extensionMethod)
>>
>> and even:
>>
>> myPackage add: icon.
>>
>> and then:
>>
>> myPackage serializeTo: aStream.
>>
>> and then:
>>
>> myPackage := Package loadFrom: aStream.
>>
>> what could be more simpler and powerful?
>
> Then write it. It's trivial, we both know it. And when you've written it
> you'll see that the problem isn't coming up with an artificial Package
> class. The problem is that you need to integrate with all the existing tools
> out there. And that's why PackageInfo is useful. It is fake but it provides
> a set of conventions that actually work. Love it or hate it, but unless
> someone actually provides an alternative I much prefer fake packages over no
> packages.
>

Yes, of course you are right.
It is better than nothing :)

> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.