Fwd: Standards Effort for Smalltalk

stéphane ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Thu Oct 6 18:34:42 UTC 2005


> From: James Robertson <jarober at gmail.com>
> Date: 6 octobre 2005 17:27:24 GMT+02:00
> To: ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
> Subject: Fwd: Standards Effort for Smalltalk
>
>
> Stef,
>         I should included you in this message.  Please consider who  
> (or what group) from the Squeak community would be interested in  
> participating

sounds like if a group of people are interested this would be cool. I  
does not want to push that but interested to get involved
and see if tests can help us there.
Knowing that you are different on unexpected areas i (cf the  
dictionary containing nil as key) and assessing if this is worth been  
different s interesting
like the 10 asString not exciting in VW :)
But may be this is just a dream.

>> Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 11:20:01 -0400
>> To:  
>> abdavis at ksc.com,clayberg at instantiations.com,monty.williams at gemstone.c 
>> om,blair at object-arts.com,knight at acm.org
>> From: James Robertson <jarober at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Standards Effort for Smalltalk
>> Cc: bbadger at openskills.com
>>
>> Gentlemen,
>>
>>         A few of us have been discussing Smalltalk standards on  
>> the IRC channel recently.  What I have in mind isn't necessarily  
>> as formal as the old ANSI process, but it would require some  
>> effort.  Rather than working on Smalltalk as a whole, I thought it  
>> might make sense to pick up from the old effort, and try to  
>> standardize a few areas that make sense, such as:
>>
>> Sockets
>> Files/Streams
>>

I replied that tests could be the first things to try.


>> and possibly moving on to more contentious areas, like Namespaces.  
>> Thoughts?

But that namespaces should be kept way down at the bottttttttttom of  
the list.


>>
>>
>> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
>> James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
>> http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView
>>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list