Jason Johnson wrote:
>> Well, I would actually consider going in the OPPOSITE direction inspired
>> by Dan etc. Why not just go *fully late bound*? It would solve lots of
>> problems - like dynamic remapping of spaces without any recompilation
>> needed.
>>     
>
> Because of the speed concerns, and it may not (probably isn't) always
> be needed.  My idea here was just implement it purely late bound with
> no option for compile time binding, and just use macros (which I want
> anyway) to implement early binding.
>   
But I have always been impressed with Self's philosophy: design it the 
right way, and let the implementation find the fast way to do it, behind 
the scenes.  So, I think late-binding is the right way to specify this 
stuff.  The implementors need to solve the speed problem.   (easy for me 
to say ;-) )

David