=?ISO-8859-1?Q?st=E9phane_ducasse?= <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> >> I have another question concerning the difference you want to do
> >> between environment and namespace. I do not understand why we could 
> >> not
> >> only use #environment to get the namespace of the class. Else we will
> >> have two concepts that are not the same but not different.
> >
> > Well, IMHO right now we have only a half concept. Environment as it
> > looks today isn't usable AFAIK. But I agree.
> 
> Hi goran
> 
> I was not talking abou thte class environment but the method 
> environment and the instvar (if there is one).

Well, I was too. :) Anyway, what I meant was that Environment +
Class>>environment/environment: + theinstvar wasn't used today - but now
I am beginning to think that perhaps that is a false conclusion given
that ClassBoxes uses them - at least I think Alexandre wrote that.

Which would mean that I actually *shouldn't* reuse it. Well, as you can
see we need to resolve this into something pretty soon.

IMHO the class Environment and accompanying methods here and there in
the image are more or less remnants from the 3.3-modules. Granted Dan
wrote Environment before that. But the fact remains that tis stuff isn't
used in "plain Squeak" nor is it in a working state, AFAICT.

*If* (and that is definitely not a decision that we will take lightly -
we need to test and play with it thoroughly before that) we decide to
adopt an approach like the one I proposed for *standard* Squeak, then we
should probably at the same time move Environment out of the image etc.
Having it "hanging around" is probably pretty confusing.

Anyway, I hope I can post my latest today with the instructions to do a
conversion of the image so that you can see it in "full action".

regards, Göran