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

[Stephen Compall]

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 ** http://scompall.nocandysw.com/blog **
But you know how reluctant paranormal phenomena are to reveal
themselves when skeptics are present. --Robert Sheaffer, SkI 9/2003