Hi!

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?st=E9phane_ducasse?= <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
[SNIP]
> >> But we should be able to add comment and other information to 
> >> packages.
> >
> > But... that is the job of SM! You simply register a corresponding SM
> > package, fill in the PI field - and bam - you now have description,
> > owner, comaintainers, releases yaddayadda. I thought this was obvious.
> 
> NO!
> Why this information should be on a server.
> Class comments and methods comments are not on a server.

"on a server"? *Sure* they are! They are on the update stream server,
aren't they? And then fed out into your image. Just like everything on
SM is - also fed out into your image. The whole damn SM model is right
there in your image - you surely know this.

SM is a shared model of information. We all have the same model (synced)
in our images. The same goes for code - but the sharing is done using
update streams instead. Very, very little difference.

Now - I surely hope you do not intend to reinvent all meta data about
packages that SM has do you? Adding a comment instvar - fine, ok. But
please, don't reimplement SM.

[SNIP off namespace stuff]
> > Couldn't help myself. :) Btw, you still haven't explained to me why you
> > didn't like it? I would be interested in hearing that - but yes, in
> > another thread or private email.
> 
> We all here do not like it so may be one of us will take time to explain

All? That sounds harsh. :) Has anyone actually tried it? I have
presented my Namespaces for a group of Squeak/Smalltalkers here at
SweSUG and they all liked it a LOT. So... I wonder.

> but you should come to ESUG and you will get what we think.
> I already explain that we do not want to have reference to other 
> namespace elements inside
> method body. But I will not continue here.

Oh, I hadn't heard that opinion.

regards, Göran