I should add that a spent a few days last fall and did an audit of the  
unix VM versus carbon mac VM to identify the differences, and
turned that report over to Ian for comment.

The carbon VM won't disappear because it's a code base for classic mac,  
and provides the same classic to os-x platform usability.

Hopefully, based on many hours we can merge or create the lacking mac  
functionality (ie aliases) into the unix VM. Things like
the OS process plugin are hard to do in carbon vm because it's HFS file  
named base, and all that unix stuff is unix file named based.

Then perhaps we could rip the os-x specific stuff out of the classic  
mac vm source code I'd guess.

Even as a 'to do' item is to document the VM to smalltalk interface and  
ensure all popular VM do in fact match api and
result expectations. A compliance document comes to mind, anyone  
interested? All the source code should be accessible, all one
needs to do is a lot of reading and consolidating the information into  
some sort of readable document.


On Feb 6, 2004, at 6:04 AM, Marcel Weiher wrote:

>
> On 6 Feb 2004, at 09:41, Avi Bryant wrote:
>
>> Because maintaining two VMs for Mac OS X is enough duplicated effort  
>> already.  Maintaining three is just silly.
>
> Yes, the last time I discussed this with Ian he essentially said he  
> didn't care because he was only doing it for the learning experience  
> anyhow.
--
======================================================================== 
===
John M. McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
======================================================================== 
===