Hi Andreas ---

At 10:57 PM +0200 4/12/04, Andreas Raab wrote:
>  > But I wonder if these extensions are even required to address the current
>>  namespace-related issues/problems being discussed.
>>
>>  What am I missing?
>
>Mostly the human factors. It is true that Smalltalk already has namespaces.
>It is equally true that -strictly speaking- we don't need namespaces anyway.
>We have objects, everything is an object, so why bother using namespaces at
>all? ;-)
>
>So the point we're discussing here is how to introduce an old and even
>existing concept in an accessible way, in a way where it will be understood
>by other than hardcore Smalltalkers "in the right way". The whole point here
>is that while you're right that classes already define namespaces, noone,
>not a single package that I find at SM uses them in the way you're
>describing. Which to me means only one thing: It isn't recognized (by
>people!) as a solution that actually addresses their needs. Someone (I think
>it was Dan but I might be wrong

heh heh .....

>  ... at least I remember the quote from him)
>said "if two things are almost the same, then either make them the same or
>make them very different". In this situation I'm leaning towards the latter
>so that even if Smalltalk has namespaces already these "kinds of namespaces"
>can be more easily recognized as addressing a particular problem.
>
>Cheers,
>   - Andreas


--