[DISCUSSION] Is Squeak/Smalltalk able to do this?

Withers, Robert rwithers at quallaby.com
Mon Feb 10 21:45:49 UTC 2003

Ok, Stephane, please all'y'all :) join the squeake mailing list and share
with us your ideas.  We just went through a discussion about how to mix the
openness and malleability of Smalltalk with the security of E.  Result:
Squeak will host the SqueakE language and use its tools to reflect into
SqueakE  (at least until we can build a refractor system - courtesy of Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephane Ducasse [mailto:ducasse at iam.unibe.ch]

> hehe :) the power of pointers pointing the the same things and traits 
> to not have state so
> no offset mess.

Good thing there is no state in shared traits, I'm guessing.  :)

> yes the only thing is that when sharing compiled method is 
> that we have 
> to copy the ones
> that contains a super reference. But this a smart trick from 
> nathanael.

ahh, that makes sense.  So you compile in context...    But, does this mean
that methods from a Trait cannot access instance variables directly?
(semi-rhetorical)  I must look at the context you compile in.  I guess it
would be the defining Trait.

> > I can't wait to hear about the other goodies coming from 
> Bern...  ;-)
> ClassBoxes :) (Modules with local rebinding) soon we will 
> have a public 
> paper and alex is reimplementing it influenced by the 
> implementation of 
> Steven Pair for multiple namespaces.

awesome!  (I think - it sounds cool!)   Does this get into the Oasis realm
of plugging a module into a backplane to resolve references?  What has
happened to Les, btw?  The oasis site is down.

> A smalltalk without direct access to instance variables. 
> That's an non 
> conceptual one :)

oh, yes!  But what about assignment?  We could definitely use this in

> Open privacy for traits. Quite cool but not yet done....

This also sounds similar in goals to squeake.

> at the end we hope to have our own language :) possibly with 
> scripting 
> facilities, reflection, mirror and modules. We will get there I hope 
> this is too exciting.

Well this is definitely the plan for squeake.  It must be a different
language, although we are seeing if we could in fact support the ANSI spec.
The fundamental agreement was that it must have Squeak's openness and
malleability - that is the real power of Smalltalk.


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list