Stephane Ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
	I can live with the argument of richard about lifetime because
	this is right.

Great.

	What I do not like with classVariable is that it
	does not express that variables are shared between a class and
	its instances.

I may have misunderstood what you wrote before.
Then I thought you were saying that you don't like the FACT that
the scope of a class variable includes instances.  That of course
is something that could be taken care of by, oh, the refactoring
browser or lint checker?

What if the template read

    Object subclass: #NameOfSubclass

      "instance lifetime, instance scope"
        instanceVariableNames: ''

      "class lifetime, class and instance scope"
        classVariableNames: ''

      "dictionaries, image lifetime, shared with other classes & instances"
	poolDictionaries: ''

      "where to catalogue the class"
	category: 'Kernel-ST80 Remnants'

(perhaps under the control of a Preference)?

It is in general *impossible* for a name in a program to express the
whole truth.  If it expresses nothing but the truth, it has done more
for us than most names.  I don't think the keyword should be expected
to bear the burden of explaining EVERYTHING about class variables.