[Help-smalltalk] Re: giving smalltalk python import

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 12:10 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > It could be. There are some tradeoffs: its easier (and ease is
> > important) to just write a script, and be able to move it on disk to
> > have everything associated move, rather than have to create a formal xml
> > file.=20
> 
> But a packages.xml file is actually quite simple and it can abstract away
> the namespace and a few other boring details.  I already did this yesterday
> evening as well.

Yes... but :}.

> > Namespace currentSpace at: #defaultModule put: CVS.abstractFactory !
> 
> Initialization like this is not very common in Smalltalk.

Sure, was just demoing a point.

> > which I think you'll agree is more work.
> 
> Maybe, but I want to minimize the amount of work for a first version.
> Souping it up can be done later.

As long as we are willing to change..

> > why not a . ? (I dont' have anything against '/', but . has some
> > advantages:
> >
> > * its the syntax used in the language to traverse namespaces
> 
> But here it's not namespaces, these are in packages.xml.  I fear confusion,
> and I don't want to impose a one-one relationship between namespaces and
> directories.

The power of the python model comes from the one-one relationship!

> > Thats still quite manual: I'd like to see the loader just Do The Right
> > Thing - do you think we could do that? (If we can conceptually do it,
> > then we can worry about how to get there :}).
> 
> It will be easier than you probably think, hear me. :-)  And it can be made
> even easier later.

Ok, I'll pay attention :}.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part