Avi Bryant wrote:

> ...  And "we don't have a package system in the base" is both 
> incorrect (PackageInfo is meant for exactly this purpose) and a poor 
> excuse (if we start destroying the design of the system because we 
> don't have a package system now, how will we fix it once we do?).


This may be the source of the misunderstanding... perhaps people don't 
realize that PackageInfo is in the system and we should start using its 
conventions?  I agree that it would be bad to try to be package system 
agnostic which would have the effect of preventing dividing things up by 
the class-extension convention.

So, in other words, we do have a package system in the base and we 
should start using it.

- Doug