On Dec 4, 2003, at 2:59 AM, ducasse wrote:

>>
>>> You should have a look at my comparison  
>>> http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Archive/Papers/ 
>>> Duca99aMsgPassingControl.pdf
>>>
>>> If I remember well in VW I did something similar, but
>>> 	I created a new behavior copied the format of the class to this  
>>> behavior, then compile class to be superclass
>>> 	and superclass to be class superclass.
>>
>> Ah, I may now understand your objection better - what you were doing  
>> in your paper was trying to affect an entire class of objects at  
>> once, transparently.    I'm trying to affect a single instance, and  
>> it doesn't need/want to be transparent.  I'm not using the existing  
>> lookup mechanism to hack in new semantics (like my Mixin  
>> implementation does, for example), I'm really just trying to  
>> introduce a new way of defining subclasses (that happen to have  
>> exactly one instance).
>
> No read it well I can have instance based behavior!

Ah - well, in your 3.2 you do talk about instance based behavior, but  
you use precisely the same approach I do (don't you?).  It sounded like  
you might have been describing 3.1, which is across the whole class.   
Sorry for the confusion.

To be completely clear: you don't have a way to both get instance based  
behavior, and not have "inst class superclass" yield the original  
class, do you?

By the way, that's a great paper, it should be required reading for  
serious smalltalkers ;).

Avi