I happen to think you've mentioned some of the worst named classes in
Smalltalks heritage, and that they could all be more intention
revealing.

GlobalsDictionary or Namespace, CodeNavigation or CodeOracle and
ClassCategorizer are much more intention revealing (though they could be
prettier).

But that's just my opinion. While the compatibility breakage from
changing such old names might be too high a price to pay, I'd prefer to
avoid extending "System"'s systematic abuse.

Daniel

Colin Putney <cputney at wiresong.ca> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 02:51  AM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
> > [class names]
> > I proposed "Code" instead of "System" as being much specific and
> > intention revealing, though "code" isn't a very precise term in
> > Smalltalk.
> 
> I prefer "System" because it matches the other class names used else 
> where in the image: SystemDictionary, SystemNavigation, SystemOrganizer 
> and SystemVersion all have to do with code.
> 
> It does seem that "System" is used a little more broadly than if it  
> meant "the infrastructure which allows the system to run." SystemWindow 
> doesn't quite belong, for example, and the System-* class categories 
> contain a few more classes than are necessary for the functioning of 
> the system.
> 
> In general, though, that's what "System" does means, and so I favour 
> SystemNotifier and SystemModified over CodeNotifier and CodeModified. 
> The names of the actual events could be simplified though, as Brent 
> suggested.
> 
> Colin