bert at freudenbergs.de
Sat Jun 30 11:36:23 UTC 2007
On Jun 30, 2007, at 12:42 , Philippe Marschall wrote:
> 2007/6/30, Edgar J. De Cleene <edgardec2001 at yahoo.com.ar>:
>> El 6/30/07 3:31 AM, "Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> escribió:
>> > 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
>> > that one may be able to get rid of SmalltalkImage at some point
>> > pretty sure Smalltalk is around to stay ;-)
>> > Cheers,
>> > - Andreas
>> I always like this view.
>> Ralph , I wish we could do the "revert to 3.4" for Smalltalk.
>> What is your point in this issue ?
> Wow, Smalltalk really is Windows. You have to be compatible with every
> mistake you ever made because your clients will refuse to update their
> code. There is actually code you there that uses SmalltalkImage
> current because it was written for 3.9 or 3.8. Do you seriously want
> to give them deprecation messages?
What if the "SmalltalkImage current" thing was the mistake? Wouldn't
your argument apply either way?
- Bert -
More information about the Squeak-dev