On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On 22.01.2015, at 18:32, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2015-01-22 9:30 GMT+01:00 Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>:
>> On 22 January 2015 at 08:25, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 22.01.2015, at 09:22, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 21 January 2015 at 23:48,  <commits at source.squeak.org> wrote:
>> >>> Tobias Pape uploaded a new version of Environments to project The Trunk:
>> >>> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Environments-topa.56.mcz
>> >>>
>> >>> ==================== Summary ====================
>> >>>
>> >>> Name: Environments-topa.56
>> >>> Author: topa
>> >>> Time: 22 January 2015, 12:48:30.677 am
>> >>> UUID: e5cad590-2869-4f02-84ac-482952779d06
>> >>> Ancestors: Environments-topa.55
>> >>>
>> >>> Provide more Dictionary protocol for exisiting users of Smalltalk globals.
>> >>
>> >> If it addresses, in an expedient way, existing problems, then fine.
>> >> But the Environments work was explicitly trying to move _away_ from
>> >> the Dictionary protocols. Hence why the existing Dictionary-like
>> >> methods are in the "emulating" category.
>> >
>> > Refactoring-Core is using this API.
>>
>> Obviously making the rest of the world move to the Environments API is
>> the _right_ thing to do, if it's manipulating environmental stuff, but
>> in the meantime, +1 to this addition :)
>>
>> frank
>>
>>
>> We can use the #deprecated: in the meantime so as to not forget
>> - that we should change senders
>> - that we should not use this API in new code
>
> I'm unsure.
> I _really_ like the idea of treating a namespace as a dictionary.
> But this is just gut feeling.

My first reaction was similar to Frank's, but then I remembered that
this is Tobias who, I think, has worked on some of the HP's projects
like Code Talk and other cool IDE and development tools.

That made me more empathetic to Tobias' gut feeling -- because by
being able to have an API consistent with a general collection, it may
have facilitated the implementation of some of these tools.

So I concluded the "detractor" is not it _having_ Dictionary API, but
by _using_ its Dictionary API from other places that could and should
use higher-level Environments API.  We could simply not do that.