Adrian Lienhard wrote:
>> * you actually start using 3.9, in which case you'll have issues  with 
>> porting back stuff to older Squeak versions (this will be a  serious 
>> issue for packages that are and should be used in older  versions of 
>> Squeak - will these older versions of Monticello be  able to deal with 
>> class definition that have been created in 3.9? etc)
> 
> yes, you can load packages built with a MC 3.9 version in an older MC  
> version if the package does not include traits.

Interesting. That's actually really good news. But if you start using 
traits I presume it's a one-way street?

>> * you assume a stable interface in classes and meta classes (this  got 
>> seriously broken in 3.7, then again in 3.8, and now again in  3.9 - it 
>> is amazing how little continuity there has been in such a  critical 
>> part of the system)
> 
> For traits, we tried to maintain the existing class/metaclass  interface 
> as much as possible. Do you have a concrete problematic  example where 
> this is not the case?

I'll find them when I can convince myself to spend the time figuring out 
what goes wrong in Tweak this time ;-) Right now, no I don't have any 
except what I wrote in response to earlier messages.

>> Now, I'm not saying that everyone will be affected by (or even care  
>> about) the above but if you are in either situation it is pretty  safe 
>> to assume you'll be severely screwed one way or another. Case  in 
>> point: Without appropriate fixes Monticello and file contents  browser 
>> are invariably broken (and so is the VW parcel that allows  people to 
>> load Squeak code).
> 
> Do you have examples?

Examples for what? What I gave you were examples for (and representative 
for classes of) code that broke and will break after traits integration. 
At least I believe it's correct that someone needed to fix those tools 
to make them work with traits. And those examples were given in response 
to Cees question about what would be affected by traits integration. 
Well, that code was affected by traits, wouldn't you agree?

Cheers,
   - Andreas