PoolDictionary handling (was Re: [ANN] "Upgrade to 3.6 FullImage"
package on SqueakMap)
Stephen Pair
stephen at pairhome.net
Sat May 17 14:40:28 UTC 2003
Andreas Raab wrote:
>>Would it not be better to go ahead and make the VM actually
>>send the #value message...it seems like that the right thing
>>to do and would buy us a lot in terms of
>>experimenting with new approaches for these kinds of things.
>>
>>
>
>You lost me. How does sending #value or not to a binding affect pool
>management?
>
It doesn't, it just enables the pool to control how it's variables get
accessed. The binding for a pool dictionary might send a message of the
form #getPoolVar (where PoolVar is replaced with the actual
variableName) to the pool dictionary. Any pool dictionary could then
override such a method if it needs to.
With their own Behavior, pool dictionaries could dispense with a lot of
the extra stuff that a regular class needs (such as a meta class). It
would also be in the pools' Behavior where you'd create the default
methods to access each of the defined pool vars.
Anyway, I'm not sure that I even like what I'm saying on this topic, but
I thought I'd mention it in case it might lead to other possible solutions.
>BTW, you don't need to change the VM for this - a slight compiler
>modification is all that's needed. We have this modification already in
>place for stores into 'other than association' bindings (such as read-only
>bindings).
>
Right, and I see that Anthony has already done this in his compiler.
- Stephen
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|