2013/3/12 Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:
>
> On 2013-03-12, at 12:33, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2013/3/12 Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:
>>
>>> Isn't #value too general to serve as a specially treated token in the decompiler? It might easily appear in code.
>>>
>>> I'd think it would be better if the compiler emitted a unique message selector that the decompiler could reliably recognize. Maybe #pvtValue, which cannot be used in regular code anyway?
>>>
>>> - Bert -
>>>
>>
>> That's a good question.
>> If we want to be able to define different behaviors with delegation in
>> mind, pvtValue seems a bit restrictive.
>
> Why? #value can easily implemented as "^self pvtValue". It's really only so that that we can distinguish the compiler-generated selector from a user-typed selector.
>

As I understand it, yes, this way is possible, but isn't the other way
forbidden ?

pvtValue
    ^delegate pvtValue

Unless of course we change selector at first indirection.

Nicolas

>> Corolaries: how will the VM optimize the send (PIC, etc...)
>>
>> Nicolas
>
>
> Well, a PIC wouldn't care about the actual selector. It would only make a difference if #value was treated specially by the VM, and I though it wasn't, and probably shouldn't.
>
> - Bert -
>
>
>