kosik at fiit.stuba.sk
Thu Oct 19 08:24:38 UTC 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Alejandro F. Reimondo wrote:
>> Or am I wrong? Is it somehow possible
>> to implement ConstantPoint in
> If you need a point that do not move,
> do not send #move messages to the point.
If I were the only one who would like to use that object than it would
be partially acceptable. But as soon as I would give others the
permission to that constant-point, I would like to *enforce* my
particular policy I had in mind.
If I do not want others to move that point then I do not want to give
them authority to move that point.
If I do not want other system to write more than 100 character log to
some file, then I do not want to give it authority to write more than
(other examples could be invented)
In Smalltalk such things are not enforcable. In E they are. Why is the
ability to enforce some policy important? It is usually useful when one
wants to cooperate with parties but he/she/it does not fully trust them.
In day to day reality this happens all the time.
> Nothing more efficient than the action
> that has not been done.
> (if you have points that move and points that
> do not move... it is very provable to have a
> "failure" or a wrong point in the wrong place)
icq: 300133844, skype: matej_kosik, sarkan at jabber.sk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v188.8.131.52 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Squeak-dev