[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Help-smalltalk] Re: [patch] explain that namespaces and packages aren't

From: Stephen Compall
Subject: [Help-smalltalk] Re: [patch] explain that namespaces and packages aren't related
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 03:24:00 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv: Gecko/20070802 SeaMonkey/1.1.4

Stephen wrote:
I can see why the two are different when I look at the history of Smalltalk, but it does seem to add complexity compared to namespaces/packages in other languages.

Having the rigidity that comes with conflating the at best loosely related concepts of symbol table partitioning and library loading is why, for example, class loading in Java servlet containers is so conceptually complicated. The designers of the default class loader did simple, static applications a favor at the expense of more sophisticated, dynamic designs.

I would like a way to at once communicate the fact that namespaces and packages are not related, and modify readers' mental model of these concepts in general so they are less likely to be confused when encountering such systems in the future. As a recent GST documentation reader, do you have any suggestions for how I can modify the paragraph I posted in the previous patch to achieve this?

;;; Stephen Compall ** **
But you know how reluctant paranormal phenomena are to reveal
themselves when skeptics are present. --Robert Sheaffer, SkI 9/2003

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]