On May 17, 2007, at 19:27 , tim Rowledge wrote:

>
> On 17-May-07, at 10:19 AM, j blatter wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I was ironic, guessed you will catch that.
>
> I hoped it might be but you would be astonished how often it is  
> suggested - or worse, tried - by people that insist on treating  
> Smalltalk as one of those dead languages that need manual memory  
> allocation and freeing.
>
>> What I'm actually looking for is for real answers to the problem
> Find the object(s) holding onto the obsolete objects. Somewhere,  
> something considers the object(s) important. Ending up with a lot  
> of obsolete references is usually a signal that some class got  
> removed improperly or at least at a bad point in the sequence of  
> whatever you were trying to do.


http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/2631

- Bert -