Squeak already has private method support (was Re: FW: Pressu

Ivan Tomek ivan.tomek at acadiau.ca
Sun Feb 21 14:33:06 UTC 1999


Date forwarded: 	20 Feb 1999 17:28:17 -0000
Date sent:      	Sat, 20 Feb 1999 09:06:15 -0800 (GMT)
From:           	Tim Rowledge <rowledge at interval.com>
Subject:        	RE: Squeak already has private method support (was Re: FW: Pressu
To:             	Squeak mailinglist <squeak at cs.uiuc.edu>
Forwarded by:   	squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
Send reply to:  	squeak at cs.uiuc.edu

> 
> So, it is as always a balance between function and performance. Is enforcable
> runtime privacy worth a couple of cycles added to a two or three hundred
> cycle send routine? What do people think?
> 
> 

Isn't optional runtime checking a possibility?


Ivan Tomek,
Jodrey School of Computer Science
Acadia University
Nova Scotia, Canada

fax: (902) 585-1067
voice: (902) 585-1467


Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
Go Smalltalk.





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list