> But you do like the idea of relying on an array, do you? ;-) Because 
> that's
> what you use today - an object is represented as an array that you 
> access
> via bytecodes which are the precise equivalent to #instVarAt: and
> #instVarAt:put: ;-)

I know :)

>> 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.
>
> Well, actually you don't have much of a choice since you can't really 
> make
> messages private. So saying it should only be accessible via the class 
> is
> unfeasable unless you do some rather drastic changes which violate the
> simplicity of the proposal.

I know that too. I hope that we will have another nice paper soon to 
expose
the idea of nathanael on how to introduce privacy in a backward 
compatible way.
But this is research. Now for Squeak3000 I would really like to see if 
we could get rid of direct iv access


>> 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.
>
> Maybe in terms of the algebraic notion of the system (as in Self) but I
> really doubt that it would be simpler to explain and use such a 
> system. As a
> matter of fact that's why I chickened out of using implicit self (which
> would solve this and other problems).

Oops I was not meaning implicit and explicit receiver because this can 
be complex.
but just saying no direct access just accessor that you do not program 
anymore.
but are just there.

>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>