On 04/08/2011 08:16 AM, Chris Muller wrote:
> I'm having trouble understanding what everyone is criticizing here.
> Is it that PackageInfo does not keep its own state?  That it relies on
> the category names of classes and methods to know what is "contained"
> in it?

I'd imagine it's that packages aren't actually containers of anything. 
If a package contained a class, then classes wouldn't be global in 
scope, and you could have multiple classes named #User in the system in 
different packages.

> Wouldn't that be a separate step though?  Right now, we kill two birds
> with one stone:  categorizing classes and methods, AND assigning their
> Package at the same time.

Which works because classes are global, which is the issue.  Right now 
packages are fake, so you still have to prefix your class names with 
package abbreviations to prevent conflicts with similar classes in other 
packages.

Read the archives, it's been an ongoing debate for years.  Adding real 
packages breaks all the cool tools.

--
Ramon Leon