Tim Rowledge certainly wrote :
1/- 34 classes with 0 instances (so shouldn't be in the
image):
completely wrong. Just for one example, if you want to have integers you
Now I realise that the superclass chain analysis is completely broken. So those classes with 0 instances may still be needed. This must be fixed.
But, there may still be un-needed stuff in there ?
Cheers,
PhiHo.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Rowledge" tim@sumeru.stanford.edu To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:58 PM Subject: Re: Image Builder (Re: Mythical small kernel images?)
"PhiHo Hoang" phiho.hoang@rogers.com appears to have written:
1/- 34 classes with 0 instances (so shouldn't be in the
image):
completely wrong. Just for one example, if you want to have integers you need the integer branch of the hierarchy available SmallInteger (probably Large*Integer as well), Number, Magnitude, Object. Oh and you need Class and thus Metaclass, ClassDescription, Behavior etc. in order to have methods to run (so you need CompiledMethod, MethodDictionary - and Dictionary, Set, Collection). Then again if you want to have almost any control structure avaialble you need True and False and thus Boolean. MethodContexts and BlockContexts are rather useful in actually running code, so ContextPart has to come along. Unless one proposes a single threaded system you might like Process (and thus Link and ProcessorScheduler and Semaphore - bringing in LinkedList and SequencableCollection)
It takes a village, of sorts, to make a child image.
tim
-- +================================================================+ |Though a nation watched her falling, yet a world could only cry | |As they passed from us to Glory , riding fire in the sky. | |(Jordin Kare, Fire In The Sky) | |Farewell Columbia. | +================================================================+ Tim Rowledge, tim@sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim