> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Lex Spoon
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 12:33 PM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: RE: Modules and class... [ a off-topic question ?]
> 
> 
> > I think that it is mostly lack of experience in this space that is
doing
> > the talking here amongst Squeak folks.
> 
> 
> I think my intuitive decomposition of classes and modules may be
similar
> to others', so let me toss it out.
> 
> A class primarily declares a number of instance variables, and holds a
> number of methods, and can be instantiated.  It can also define
> variables in a local scope, but that's secondary and not even
necessary
> if we have modules.

You've described a constructor, not a class.

> 
> A module primarily defines variables in a local scope.  Theoretically,
> it could have instance variables, could have methods, and could even
> allow instantiation.  These abilities are not only secondary, but
might
> not be necessary at all.

You've described a namespace, not a module.

-- Dave S. [www.smallscript.org]

> 
> Looking at this, there isn't much of an intersection in the common
uses.
>  Why don't we just say that a class *has* a module (to hold class
> variables), and leave it at that?
> 
> 
> Of course, I haven't implemented a Smalltalk modules system and
> developed it over 10 years, so I may be being naive here.  I just
worry
> about equating ideas just because their implementations share some
> features.  Conceptually the two things are different, and thus
> implementing them as the same thing is bothersome.  This is the core
of
> the language, so let's keep it as clean as we can!
> 
> 
> 
> -Lex