BlackBox Framework Center

I personally do not like the fact that the Blackbox kernel took over the role of seperated modules of other Oberon implementations, including ETHOS, which is according to his author, Clemens Szyperski, the blueprint on which Blackbox (at that time named Oberon/F) was built: Memory management and garbage collection, objects, meta programming, loader and module handling etc. (see http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/ese ... 713-02.pdf and https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... -y1bJwEYE8).

Ivan's list of modules already importing Kernel, implies that the original design decision to unite the functionality of all those modules, which I listed obove, in Kernel is at least questionable, but this is a longer discussion, which should be moved from here to another thread.

It does not belong into the the discussion of this voting.

Robert wrote:Is it possible to change one's vote?

yes, you can. Just resubmit your changed vote ...

bernhard wrote:Ivan's list of modules already importing Kernel implies that the design decision to unite these modules in Kernel is at least questionable, but this is a longer discussion, which should be moved from here to another thread.

It does not belong into the the discussion of this voting.

No, Bernhard, you misunderstood me! I am not suggesting to unite this modules in Kernel!!!

I was replying to your remark about importing kernel. This list shows, that you do not need to do extra import of Kernel, it is already imported in this modules. The extra import required only in three modules: DevCPS, DevCPT, DevCPP.

Is it clear now?

Ivan Denisov wrote:

bernhard wrote:Ivan's list of modules already importing Kernel implies that the design decision to unite these modules in Kernel is at least questionable, but this is a longer discussion, which should be moved from here to another thread.

It does not belong into the the discussion of this voting.

No, Bernhard, you misunderstood me! I am not suggesting to unite this modules in Kernel!!!

no, I think I understood you correctly; I did not assume that you want to unite your list of modules in Kernel.

But your proposal increases the list of modules, which import Kernel. I think this is undesirable.

I edited my post and tried to clarify, what I wanted to say. Please step back and review my edited post. Hopefully it is clear now.

bernhard wrote:Ivan's list of modules already importing Kernel, implies that the original design decision to unite the functionality of all those modules, which I listed obove, in Kernel is at least questionable, but this is a longer discussion, which should be moved from here to another thread.

This discussion and voting is exactly about this, so there is no need to move something. We are discussing, what with issue-#19 some modules now united. They are handling identifiers containing Unicode. So they are united already around identifiers. If this three modules will import Kernel to support identifiers conversions it will decrease the mess around usage of different modules for conversions.

Since I know from warnersoft via private e-mail that he is not intending to vote
because he does not have the time and the skills to take part in the center's decisions,
I am going to close this voting now.

- Josef