On 2/19/07, Alan Lovejoy <squeak-dev.sourcery at forum-mail.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ok, thanks for the explanation.  I think I now understand your problem.
>
> My suggestion: Namespaces should be constructed by message sends, just
> like classes are constructed by message sends.  The instructions to
> create/modify namespaces should be encoded in a file out as "do it"
> chunks--again, just like class definitions.  This may not be the ideal
> solution in the long run, but it's the only workable/acceptable solution
> initially.
>

I would avoid changing the canonical message sends that define classes if at
> all possible.  If necessary, send additional namespace-related messages to
> classes in separate "do it" chunks.
>


It certainly isn't the /only/ workable/acceptable solution, and I'm not
worried about backwards compatibility unless it's cheap.

But this is a good option. It has the advantage of being able to load code
that uses Namespaces into a non-Namespace-able image.

>
> Evolution almost always works a lot better than revolution.
>

Evolution is the process of keeping the obfuscated mess that didn't die.

Michael.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20070219/45fc0438/attachment.htm