> Yes, and it's too bad that our compiler doesn't currently support
> this kind of easy extensibility.  I've thought in the past about
> having a #bindingOf: like facility but where instead of just
> returning an association to be put in as a literal, it returns
> some object that knows how to emit code (as a parse tree?
> bytecode?) for reads and writes.

You could do that but it's terribly dangerous. Personally, I heavily prefer
a limited form of implicit self where you say "for this variable name use
messages". So you declare a variable "foo" and instead you get #foo and
#foo: when accessing it. This allows you to implement this "variable" in any
shape or form you want, is uniquely defined and not overly hard to
understand.

By the way, that's what we were playing with yesterday ;-)

Cheers,
  - Andreas