> As for George's note about adding a variable to Object - precisely the same
> could be done here. So if we wanted to add a "variable" to Object all we
> need to do is to tell the compiler that (for example) it should use the name
> "dependents" to refer to
> 
>     DependentsFields at: self
> 
> and be done with it (there are some subtleties with the above which I won't
> discuss in detail here - see the above as a conceptual example). So there's
> a significant difference between a "variable" (representing a name we can
> use in some program) and its associated "slot". If you want to add a "slot"
> to Object, yeah, you'll be screwed in Squeak. But adding a *name* under
> which something is accessed is no problem whatsoever (except that the
> current compiler doesn't support it ;-)

As far as I can remember Smalltalk/X provide such a feature...

Alexandre

> 
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
> 

-- 
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~bergel
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.