> 
> I like this idea but I'm a bit disturbed by the thought of
> automatically creating subclasses.  In my mind, classes are code and
> thus more precious than most of the other objects (which are usually
> created by code anyway).  Creating new classes on the fly means that
> suddenly, there is code that is not human-created.  (GUI builders that
> generate C code frameworks also bother me for the same reason.)
> 
> What would be involved in adding the concept of disposable
> classes--classes which don't show up in the browser, don't have source
> code for their methods and go away when they're not needed?  If they
> don't have names, they would go away when the last instance is
> reclaimed.  If we use those, we can create classes that are clearly
> not
> 
> Does this make sense?  If not, my excuse is that it's past my bedtime.
> 
>                           --Chris

	Well these throw away classes would need to have source code, else how
would they fo anything? ;)

	And they should also appear in the browser, keeping with Smalltalks
idea of being able to inspect and view ANYTHING.

	If they were subclasses of TUPLE, they could be put in the same
category, and thus wouldn't clutter anything unless you selected it in
the view.

	Daniel Joyce