Marcus Denker wrote:
>> I'm actually slightly relieved because it means I didn't miss anything 
>> stupidly simple ;-) I spent a *lot* of brainpower on this problem in 
>> particular and I found it to be a really hard one.
> 
> The solution would be, of course, to not use offsets for instvar access 
> in the bytecode... the binding name->offset happens far too early.

So what are practical alternatives? And how do they compare to what we 
have today in terms of compactness, speed, and interpretation overhead?

> For everything but interpretation, bytecode sucks.

Perhaps so (in a serious discussion I'd have to disagree; I think there 
are various good reasons for bytecodes). But isn't interpretation what 
most of us care about most of the time?

Cheers,
   - Andreas