Recompilation (was: Re: Tips and tricks?)

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Thu Mar 11 11:19:23 UTC 2004


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ducasse" <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: Recompilation (was: Re: Tips and tricks?)


>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list