No, I don't think it's that rubbish. The categories are primarily for
helping the user to classify/find things.
So that would mean that packages have to divorce from categories, like the
Pharo team did.
I don't know, maybe it is necessary for proper packaging, but it's far from
simple...

Maybe the kind of solution you are seeking is to split packages one level
further like Pharo did.
This way you can load only some kernel collections.


2013/11/22 Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>

> On 22 Nov 2013, at 16:59, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You said there are already two places where it's used, right?  If
> > there's even just ONE MORE place that pops up, we'll find that clearly
> > Balloon (WTH?) is the wrong place for it.
> >
> >   http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2013/07/rule-of-three.html
> >
> > I think you should stay consistent in your statements about
> > "modularity."  It wraps a Dictionary, it supplies #at: for access.
> > You said if it walks and quacks like a collection, it goes in
> > Collections.
>
> No, I said that was a rubbish reason for grouping things together :)
>
> frank
>
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On 22 November 2013 10:09, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
> >>> On 22.11.2013, at 11:04, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 22 November 2013 01:03, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 01:31:37AM +0100, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Chris Muller wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Frank Shearar <
> frank.shearar at gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I'm sorely tempted to move LRUCache to Balloon. It's in System at
> the
> >>>>>>>> moment, making Balloon depend on System.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> LRUCache is generic, so how about Collections?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's generic, but the implementation is not generally useful.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't see how the concept of a LRU cache is in any way related to
> Balloon.
> >>>>> It seems to me that if it is useful enough to be included in the
> system at
> >>>>> all, then it should live in a package category that reflects the
> actual meaning
> >>>>> of the class.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Suppose for the sake of argument that Balloon was being maintained
> as an
> >>>>> external package outside of the trunk image. Suppose also that an
> LRU cache
> >>>>> was something worth having in the trunk. What package would you put
> it in?
> >>>>
> >>>> I would put it in its own package, called Cache. I anticipate heated
> >>>> discussion around yet another package with a single class.
> >>>>
> >>>> But really, LRUCache is _not_ generic, because _noone uses it_.
> >>>
> >>> Yea, that's why Seaside implements its own…
> >>>
> >>> </sarcasm> <!-- sorry -->
> >>
> >> Meh. The fundamental problem I'm trying to address is to tease these
> >> packages apart. If I make deliberate mistakes, and put LRUCache in
> >> Balloon only because that's the most basic user and doesn't add any
> >> additional dependencies, _that is a win_. It's one slightly less
> >> horrible dependency.
> >>
> >> If someone else takes umbrage at such a ridiculous idea, and makes a
> >> new package, or puts it in Collections, _and doesn't add a new
> >> ridiculous dependency_, then that's even better.
> >>
> >> No, LRUCache doesn't belong in Balloons. It may well be generally
> >> useful. But moving it there fixes a real problem. What I don't want is
> >> to be paralysed with discussions like "but this is not theoretically
> >> perfect!".
> >>
> >> frank
> >>
> >>> Best
> >>>        -Tobias
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20131122/fe4dedbc/attachment.htm