Re: Harvesting infrastructure (was Re: Order of business ...)

Hi anthony

I think that classes are not packages. I think that this really 
important
not to have classes as packages. Because packages are groups of
declaration (class def, method def, var def).

We can unify everything and at the end we got a magna.
Some programming languages try to unify classes and modules but
conceptually this is really different and when you teach concepts about 
OO
you never have classes as subsystem.

So I would vote really against it.

Stef



On dimanche, novembre 17, 2002, at 07:34  pm, Anthony Hannan wrote:

> Ned Konz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Again, we need some kind of modeling of packages. Right now there are
>> two that I have in my image:
>> * SqueakMap's card
>> * PackageInfo (previously a part of DVS, now separate).
>> I see these as being complementary; the SqueakMap deals with releases
>> and finding them, and the PackageInfo deals with code.
>
> What about classes as packages as per my recent email entitled "Class
> Dependencies".  I really think we should consider this.
>
> Cheers,
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>
>
Dr. Stéphane DUCASSE ([email protected]) 
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/
  "if you knew today was your last day on earth, what would you do
  different? ... especially if, by doing something different, today
  might not be your last day on earth" Calvin&Hobbes