[Squeakfoundation]ContextCleanupPlus-ajh (was: Re: KCP & 3.6)

[PhiHo Hoang]

Hi Göran,

> If we choose to move over to a SmaCC generated Compiler (which of course
> would be technically great) we will have a Compiler that can not be
> modified using only Squeak itself. Unless SmaCC gets included into
> official Squeak of course - which it could if it came under Squeak-L,
> which it doesn't.
>

    How so ? SmallCC can sit anywhere in the world, (even on SqMap ;-)
    Any one needs to use it, just load it, use it, generate the new
compiler,
    save the new compiler package (everything is a package, right ? )
    just don't save the image (what is an image, anyway ;-).

    Assuming that it must be in the image, which one ? minimal ? basic ?
    or kitchen sink ?

    Did I miss anything ? Were there even arguments to the effects that
    SqMap package is still useful when it's not in the image ;-)

> People may think this is a "small" issue. Personally I think it is a
> quite important issue. Every other little piece of the Squeak image is
> modifiable by Squeak itself.

    Luckily that Squeak does have an editor,

> The VM too - though not to the full extent (you need a C compiler etc).

    otherwise one needs Emacs as well. (or Notepad ;-)

> This would suddenly make the Squeak image "non self hosted".
>

    Let Squidders tell the world what 'self hosting' really means ;-)

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.

----- Original Message -----
From: <goran.krampe at bluefish.se>
To: "Discussing the Squeak Foundation"
<squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Cc: <ajh18 at cornell.edu>; "Roel Wuyts" <wuyts at iam.unibe.ch>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]ContextCleanupPlus-ajh (was: Re: KCP & 3.6)


> Hi guys!
>
> Stephane Ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > But ClosuresCs does not depend on SmaCC. It has been generated using
> > SmaCC which
> > is different. I do not need to include bison because I use a parser
> > developed with it.
> > Or there is something wrong.
> > Can you let me know if I'm wrong?
> > Stef
>
> The problem with the above reasoning is that it assumes people only
> want/need to *use* the Compiler and not *change* it.
>
> Before we had a Compiler that was written in Squeak - and thus also
> modifiable in Squeak using Squeak itself (all under Squeak-L).
>
> If we choose to move over to a SmaCC generated Compiler (which of course
> would be technically great) we will have a Compiler that can not be
> modified using only Squeak itself. Unless SmaCC gets included into
> official Squeak of course - which it could if it came under Squeak-L,
> which it doesn't.
>
> People may think this is a "small" issue. Personally I think it is a
> quite important issue. Every other little piece of the Squeak image is
> modifiable by Squeak itself. The VM too - though not to the full extent
> (you need a C compiler etc). This would suddenly make the Squeak image
> "non self hosted".
>
> Hopefully we can though still somehow get SmaCC under Squeak-L and the
> problem would be solved.
>
> Then Stephane wrote comments on the other extensions and I agree to the
> comments (but I haven't looked at the code) made. Just adding a little
> method in base classes here and there may seem "innocent" enough but
> they add up and eventually turns into a mess.
>
> regards, Göran
>
> PS. People may find it tempting to simply drop the "golden rule" sofar
> that everything in official Squeak should be under Squeak-L. That would
> probably (as Andrew Greenberg has pointed out multiple times) lead to a
> legal minefield and be very bad for Squeak.
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation