On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:


> you mean changing compiler to compile
> "<obj> Foo" message send for accessing Foo name, instead of direct
> binding access?


Oh, I see. The source code still reads as a variable access, but the
bytecode implements a message send. Sure, that would be equivalent to
Eliot's idea. Instead of a different receiver for each variable, it's a
different message for each variable.

That's a lot more feasible, but I don't see any advantage over just sending
#value to the binding, and it's more work. We already have tools that know
how to deal with bindings, and they'd all have to be converted to the new
scheme.

Colin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20130304/90674531/attachment.htm