SmalltalkImage current

Philippe Marschall philippe.marschall at gmail.com
Sat Jun 30 11:48:11 UTC 2007


2007/6/30, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:
> 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
> >> means
> >> > that one may be able to get rid of SmalltalkImage at some point
> >> (I'm
> >> > pretty sure Smalltalk is around to stay ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> >    - Andreas
> >>
> >>
> >> 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?

Sure.

Philippe


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list