Howdy, Tim,

> The compiler is only in the image. It is completely unsuited for
> conversion via the CCodeGenreator.

    Thanks for your confirmations. One should look else where for a Squeak
compiler outside of the image, unless...

> Not that you could possibly have a reasonable use for such a thing;
> there is no need nor sense in having modules as source code. A format
> like ImageSegments is entirely more likely to be useful.

    We can bootstrap Squeak with binary (?) ImageSegment modules instead of
textual Smalltalk source modules ?

    Are you saying that one can use a full blown Squeak image, create an
ImageSegment consisting of, say, ProtoObject, and Greetings (a subclass of
'ProtoObject' with just one method 'sayHello') classes.

    From this ImageSegment, theoretically, it is possible to construct a
micro image ?

    If this is viable, definitely, I agree with you, it's a much better
approach.

    It is very much appreciated if you or other ImageSegment gurus would
elaborate on this issue, probably with some examples and exercises.
Especially, how one should go about to construct an image out of a set of
ImageSegment modules. ( A draft for the chapter on OE tour, second edition ?
:-)

    Take care.

    Cheers,

    PhiHo


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Rowledge" <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Squeak Installer] The Compiler, The Final Frontier(?)


> The compiler is only in the image. It is completely unsuited for
> conversion via the CCodeGenreator.
>
> Not that you could possibly have a reasonable use for such a thing;
> there is no need nor sense in having modules as source code. A format
> like ImageSegments is entirely more likely to be useful.
>
> --
> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> Drugs may lead to nowhere, but at least it's the scenic route.
>
>
>
>