Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Developers

Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: SmalltalkImage current vs. Smalltalk

‹ Previous Topic Next Topic ›
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
♦
♦
 3 messages Options
Nicolas Cellier
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: SmalltalkImage current vs. Smalltalk

Nicolas Cellier
Sorry to open a new thread, but here is my own position.

Cheers

Nicolas

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]>
Date: 2010/3/3
Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: SmalltalkImage current vs. Smalltalk
To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
<[hidden email]>


2010/3/3 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:

> On 3/2/2010 10:14 PM, Michael Haupt wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 03.03.2010 um 03:41 schrieb Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> Consequently I'm going to completely ignore any forward-looking
>>> proposals and simply state that the current count is 3 votes for the
>>> first variant (Phil, David, Bert) and 1 vote for the second variant
>>> (Igor).
>>
>> here's another for "Smalltalk", then.
>
> That choice doesn't exist :-) You can vote for:
>
> a) Smalltalk class == SystemDictionary, or
>
> b) Smalltalk class == SmalltalkImage
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>

I vote for b).

After discussing this with Stephane Ducasse, I quite agree on this scheme:

SmalltalkImage should better be renamed System.
System soleInstance = Smalltalk.
Of course an optional bakward compatibility module would define
SmalltalkImage current

Smalltalk globals or Smalltalk namespace class = SystemDictionary
Maybe SystemDictionary shouldbetter be renamed Namespace to separate
the notion of System.

Then, if we are in need of separating methods, create new classes
SmalltalkVM etc...
But don't impose that in Kernel code, use methods indirections
(Smalltalk vm blah...)

This is a bit harder path than a), but lot cleaner IMO

Nicolas

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Henrik Sperre Johansen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Re: Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: SmalltalkImage current vs. Smalltalk

Henrik Sperre Johansen
I'd vote for b) too, should make it easier than a) in the future to move
towards a separation of concerns like what was discussed.

Personally, I think some of the voters might be a bit mislead by the
points "compatible with Cuis" for a), and "different from Cuis" for b,
listed in the initial post.
Option b) is still _compatible_ with Cuis, only the _implementation_ is
different. (ie code like Smalltalk vmParameterAt: xyz will work with
both proposed solutions). Unless, of course,  I'm the one
misunderstanding :)

Cheers,
Henry

Den 03.03.2010 15:02, skrev Nicolas Cellier:

> Sorry to open a new thread, but here is my own position.
>
> Cheers
>
> Nicolas
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]>
> Date: 2010/3/3
> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: SmalltalkImage current vs. Smalltalk
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> <[hidden email]>
>
>
> 2010/3/3 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:
>  
>> On 3/2/2010 10:14 PM, Michael Haupt wrote:
>>    
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Am 03.03.2010 um 03:41 schrieb Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:
>>>      
>>>> Consequently I'm going to completely ignore any forward-looking
>>>> proposals and simply state that the current count is 3 votes for the
>>>> first variant (Phil, David, Bert) and 1 vote for the second variant
>>>> (Igor).
>>>>        
>>> here's another for "Smalltalk", then.
>>>      
>> That choice doesn't exist :-) You can vote for:
>>
>> a) Smalltalk class == SystemDictionary, or
>>
>> b) Smalltalk class == SmalltalkImage
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>>
>>
>>    
> I vote for b).
>
> After discussing this with Stephane Ducasse, I quite agree on this scheme:
>
> SmalltalkImage should better be renamed System.
> System soleInstance = Smalltalk.
> Of course an optional bakward compatibility module would define
> SmalltalkImage current
>
> Smalltalk globals or Smalltalk namespace class = SystemDictionary
> Maybe SystemDictionary shouldbetter be renamed Namespace to separate
> the notion of System.
>
> Then, if we are in need of separating methods, create new classes
> SmalltalkVM etc...
> But don't impose that in Kernel code, use methods indirections
> (Smalltalk vm blah...)
>
> This is a bit harder path than a), but lot cleaner IMO
>
> Nicolas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
>
>  

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Stéphane Ducasse
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Re: Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: SmalltalkImage current vs. Smalltalk

Stéphane Ducasse
In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier
Yes I like it even if this looks like more work.

After we can write
        Smalltalk system vmPath
               
        Smalltalk namespace allClasses
        + at: -> forward to namespace before been deprecated



> Sorry to open a new thread, but here is my own position.
>
> Cheers
>
> Nicolas
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]>
> Date: 2010/3/3
> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: SmalltalkImage current vs. Smalltalk
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> <[hidden email]>
>
>
> 2010/3/3 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:
>> On 3/2/2010 10:14 PM, Michael Haupt wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Am 03.03.2010 um 03:41 schrieb Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:
>>>>
>>>> Consequently I'm going to completely ignore any forward-looking
>>>> proposals and simply state that the current count is 3 votes for the
>>>> first variant (Phil, David, Bert) and 1 vote for the second variant
>>>> (Igor).
>>>
>>> here's another for "Smalltalk", then.
>>
>> That choice doesn't exist :-) You can vote for:
>>
>> a) Smalltalk class == SystemDictionary, or
>>
>> b) Smalltalk class == SmalltalkImage
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>>
>>
>
> I vote for b).
>
> After discussing this with Stephane Ducasse, I quite agree on this scheme:
>
> SmalltalkImage should better be renamed System.
> System soleInstance = Smalltalk.
> Of course an optional bakward compatibility module would define
> SmalltalkImage current
>
> Smalltalk globals or Smalltalk namespace class = SystemDictionary
> Maybe SystemDictionary shouldbetter be renamed Namespace to separate
> the notion of System.
>
> Then, if we are in need of separating methods, create new classes
> SmalltalkVM etc...
> But don't impose that in Kernel code, use methods indirections
> (Smalltalk vm blah...)
>
> This is a bit harder path than a), but lot cleaner IMO
>
> Nicolas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Free forum by Nabble Edit this page