Great!

--Hannes

On 7/25/13, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 July 2013 02:56, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20 July 2013 18:09, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On 20-07-2013, at 9:36 AM, Bob Arning <arning315 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> When I see longer ways of saying something replacing shorter ways, I
>>> >> always wonder if the perceived benefit has been realized. Are there
>>> >> success
>>> >> stories out there for "SmalltalkImage current" enabling something cool
>>> >> that
>>> >> "Smalltalk" could not?
>>> >
>>> > IIRC the original idea was that SystemDictionary was overloaded with
>>> > nothing-to-do-with-dictionary methods and needed to go on a diet. I
>>> > don't
>>> > recall it being suggested that the smarter thing would have been to
>>> > remove
>>> > the *dictionary* stuff and put that somewhere else to use as an
>>> > environment
>>> > for compiling, leaving the useful system management methods attached
>>> > to
>>> > something called 'Smalltalk'. I really don't like the current (sic)
>>> > setup
>>> > where there is SmalltalkImage SystemNavigation and Smalltalk and
>>> > probably
>>> > other split out stuff I haven't even found.
>>> >
>>> > Time for re-unification.
>>>
>>> I'm actually in favour of _more_ splitting out. Having a one-stop-shop
>>> reference for all your everythings means loads of things referencing
>>> the one-stop shop. That makes modularity difficult.
>>>
>>> However, a possible resolution of the Tim vs Frank Paradox is to move
>>> SmalltalkImage into Kernel, and have other packages _extend_
>>> SmalltalkImage. Instead of "SystemNavigation default" you'd have
>>> "Smalltalk organizer", and so on.
>>>
>>> Having said that, we have bigger fish to fry. It's easy for us to
>>> bicker over the colour of the bikeshed, but we should really be
>>> spending our time beating on Environments and making the tools work
>>> correctly with same.
>>>
>>> So I'd just like to ask one thing. Is everyone happy with changing
>>> "SmalltalkImage current" references to "Smalltalk"?
>>
>>
>> +1
>
> OK, a bit noisy, but all done, at least as far as those packages that
> remain in trunk are concerned. I haven't checked those packages that
> are unloadable.
>
> frank
>
>>> Doing so makes my
>>> job of decreasing coupling between packages much easier, because every
>>> SmalltalkImage reference I remove is one less dependency on
>>> System-Support. (It might also be more Environmentally friendly!)
>>>
>>> frank
>>>
>>> > tim
>>> > --
>>> > tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>>> > Klingon Code Warrior:- 6) "Our competitors are without honor!"
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> best,
>> Eliot
>>
>>
>>
>
>