It is interesting. In base Squeak, the only time that lookupClass is set
is, well, never(!).  There is a setter method, but it isn't called is base
Squeak.  It is checked a couple of times, but unless there is hidden
machinery in the VM that sets it, it isn't actually ever used.

Unless someone decided to use it in their code.

-cbc

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:06 AM Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> It sounds good, but an Inbox submission would go a long way to
> understanding exactly what you mean esp. re: understanding this
> special condition with the lookupClass being nil...  and whether it
> deserves a first-class name or not...
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 4:10 AM Levente Uzonyi <leves at caesar.elte.hu>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Eliot Miranda wrote:
> >
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:52 AM David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com>
> wrote:
> > >       On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 09:32:17AM -0800, Eliot Miranda wrote:
> > >       > Hi All,
> > >       >
> > >       >     In VisualWorks Message implements #= & #hash naturally;
> two messages
> > >       > whose selectors and arguments are #= are also equal.  But in
> Cuis, Squeak
> > >       > and Pharo Message inherits #= and #hash from Object, i.e. uses
> identity
> > >       > comparison.  This is, to say the least, annoying.  Any
> objections to
> > >       > implementing comparing in Message to match VisualWorks?
> > >       >
> > >
> > >       That sounds like an obviously good thing to do :-)
> > >
> > >       Is the lookupClass instance variable relevant for comparisons? I
> am
> > >       guessing not, since we already have #analogousCodeTo: for that
> type of
> > >       comparison.
> > >
> > >
> > > For me it is relevant.  Two messages with different lookupClasses,
> e.g. one with nil and one with a specific class, represent different
> messages, one a normal send one a super send.  So my changes in
> > > waiting include lookupClass in both hash and =.  I don't think it
> makes much difference, but the incompatibility with VisualWorks, while
> regrettable, feels correct to me.
> >
> > What about Behavior >> #hash? It uses the name of the class, which is
> fine
> > as long as you don't rename your classes while you store them in hashed
> > collections.
> >
> > Levente
> >
> > >
> > >       Dave
> > >
> > >
> > > _,,,^..^,,,_
> > > best, Eliot
> > >
> > >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20181120/857c1064/attachment.html>