renggli at gmail.com
Sat Jun 30 15:57:57 UTC 2007
> We could keep SmalltalkImage.
> Maybe is not a bad idea. And some could complete in some future
> But compatibility seems more important now.
> I don't wish image go blow . And I think masters time is important to waste
> remembering only a particular Squeak is different.
I think it is always worth to also look at other Smalltalk
implementations. No Smalltalk that I know of puts all its image
related functionality into Smalltalk the root namespace. They all have
something like ObjectMemory, ObjectMachine, etc.
More information about the Squeak-dev