SmalltalkImage current

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at
Sat Jun 30 06:31:23 UTC 2007

Giovanni Corriga wrote:
> Interesting. Can I ask why you chose to move everything back to
> Smalltalk and delegate from SmalltalkImage current to Smalltalk instead
> of the other way around?
> Would turning Smalltalk into a full-fledged facade object be a good
> solution?

It is one possible solution. The reason I decided against it was that if 
the natural home for those methods is in Smalltalk and if those methods 
are primitives (which most of them are) then what is the point in 
delegating again? Like, for example, Smalltalk>>vmParameterAt: which is 
a comment and then a one-line primitive. Except that in the 
versions the one-line primitive is replaced with a deprecation warning, 
a no-comment, and a delegation to SmalltalkImage. And what's that good for?

So I decided that since most of the methods in SmalltalkImage are of 
that kind it'd be more useful to move them back to where they belong and 
have SmalltalkImage instead of Smalltalk be the facade. It also means 
that one may be able to get rid of SmalltalkImage at some point (I'm 
pretty sure Smalltalk is around to stay ;-)

   - Andreas

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list