Hi tim

one of the idea was that we did want to put this method in Object (may 
as a class extension associated with the package tools infrastructure 
this would be ok).

So if you look carefully, in the String holder the method 
systemNavigation
shares the SystemNavigation new amongst all the subclasses.

After there were some classes that were not in this hierarchy so I just 
coded SystemNavigation new
and I should have used systemNavigation.

So my point is that I would prefer to put something new in Object in a 
controlled manner in presence of real package and class extension. and 
that's why I did that way (not really satisfied by the duplication)

So I let others vote what is better, knowing that I would like to have 
that in extension as soon as possible.

Stef

On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 02:58 AM, Tim Rowledge wrote:

> Whilst checking out VMMaker code in the latest #5278 level image I
> stumbled over these Smalltalk/SystemNavigation bugs.
>
> We ought to decide on the correct idiom for the use of 
> SystemNavigation.
> Currently there are places where the 'SystemNavigation new' idiom is
> used and others where 'self systemNavigation' is used.
>
> It should be one or the other, not both seemingly at random.
> Implementing Object>systemNavigation would allow about 6 scattered 
> local
> implementations to be removed. Unless, of course, there is some
> principled reason why they should be there?
>
> tim
> --
> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> 29A, the hexadecimal of the Beast.
> <SysNavOddBugs.2.cs.gz>