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