> If this can only occur in this persistence scheme, then you obviously
> require a #persistentHash.

No, just the standard "value" #hash is sufficient.  A #persistentHash
wouldn't work in the use-case I described because what if they used a
standard Dictionary which bases on #hash -- so the client with the
"new" true wouldn't be able to access.

> It is true that any other literal, arrays of such, or any hash-caring
> object built of such would be cross-image hash-persistent...
> So we are very close to it.

So why opposed to including true, false, and nil then?

> But YAGNI, your hash sounds hackish...
> Maybe your own image tracer could implement the hack too ?

If anything, I see what we have now as a hack  -- because the
correctness of #hash for the **universal *value* of true** is
dependent on the *implementation* of that true -- that it is the same
one ever created in all prior Squeak's..

 - Chris