Colin Putney-3 wrote
> I wrote a couple of paragraphs on why it wouldn't make sense to have an
> implementation FileDirectory as a layer on top of Filesystem, but then I
> came to the conclusion that it might not be a bad idea after all. The
> devil
> is in the details, and we ought to look into the details. Either way, the
> current implementation of FileDirectory should eventually be available as
> a
> loadable package, so that we can still build images with legacy code that
> depends on it.

+1. Sounds much better than trying to build a compatible version.

Cheers,
  - Andreas




--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/FileSystem-was-About-backwards-Compatibility-tp4659123p4659251.html
Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.