Luciano,

You might want to explore SmallScript [www.smallscript.org] (a modular
superset implementation of the Smalltalk language).

In SmallScript, modules are type of class. Classes are namespaces. Each
bindable/namespace visible element within the system is "owned" by one,
and only one, module. [i.e.,  shared-variables (including classes), and
all methods].

The concept of a module, as a unit of packaging/deployment/ownership, is
kept semantically distinct from the concept of a namespace for purposes
of binding and related lexical scope.

SmallScript also provides first class interfaces, multiple-inheritance
of behavior, optional typing, multi-methods, sandboxes, and selector
namespaces. 

You can use it to explore some of the module and packaging ideas.
Additionally you may find it of interest with regard to modules, because
it allows creation of modules as very compact binary libraries
(COFF/ELF/CodeFragment/DLL/EXE/so) files supporting standard features
for exporting entry points that can be accessed using classic
shared-library (DLL/so) techniques from languages such as C/C++, etc.

-- Dave S. [SmallScript Corp]

SmallScript for the AOS & .NET Platforms
David.Simmons at SmallScript.com | http://www.smallscript.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of
> rallende at harlan.di.unc.edu.ar
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 9:35 AM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: Modules and class... [ a off-topic question ?]
> 
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> 
> > Luciano Notarfrancesco <lnotarfrancesco at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Just a few questions:
> > >
> >
> > > Is there any reason for having so many modules? Or it's just a
> > > consecuence of the automatic mapping from class categories to
modules
> >
> > Could be.
> 
> What fo you think about the mapping wich speaks meyer, ie. class =
module.
> 
> I'm doing a project for soft-engineering (undergraduate course)
following
> structured desing and we have problems when we want to see our modules
> implemented in smalltalk.
> 
> Class = modules was directly for us (in our project) when we
> designed/implemented ADT, but with user interfaces we had some
> problems... that forced us to review the concept, sometimes we think
> that it could be modules = categories or parts = modules (in vast
> context).
> Although we still believe that class = modules is not a bad idea, it's
not
> closed topic for us, and any idea about it will help...
> 
> thanks..
> r.
>