Hi Stef,

Oops, no kicking intended. The problem of removing (or replacing) global 
variables is a good one but one that doesn't stop at the point of removing 
Smalltalk and moving the bindings into Object or some other place. The point 
is that Smalltalk is a "name for the environment" that a class lives in and 
removing the "global" doesn't remove the environment - just its name.

Cheers,
  - Andreas

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "stéphane ducasse" <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" 
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: About removing global variables


>> Duh. No namespaces, no globals, no nothing. Now what? Have we 
>> significantly improved the situation? I don't think so. "Removing 
>> globals" without addressing what class variables and pools mean is a 
>> pretty useless exercise. And the namespace discussion is orthogonal to 
>> it.
>
> I should really dive into the compiler because this was obvious that if I 
> would know it better this would have been obvious to me. So at least I 
> learn something. Thanks to kick me. This is all these old
> discussion about classVariables and Pool and variableBinding that I should 
> reload in my memory.
>
> Thanks for the point.
> Stef
>
>