On 10 mars 04, at 22:49, Andreas Raab wrote:

>> 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.

Exactly. We were also thinking about that. Now the question is do you 
let
or not this accessor be public or only accessible from within the class.
The solution is... not simple. We have been discussing that with 
nathanael and roel
over the last year. But I think that not having iv would be a gain 
toward simplicity.

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