<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Eliot Miranda <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eliot.miranda@gmail.com">eliot.miranda@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div></div><div class="h5">On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Lawson English <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lenglish5@cox.net" target="_blank">lenglish5@cox.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div><div></div><div>
On 10/25/10 2:23 PM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<div>
<div>On 25.10.2010, at 23:10, Eliot Miranda wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:59 PM,
Lawson English <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lenglish5@cox.net" target="_blank">lenglish5@cox.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
In the Wikipedia entry on Smalltalk, there is this line in
the history section, 3rd paragraph, added roughly a year
ago: "...Smalltalk-80 added [[metaclass]]es, to help
maintain the "everything is an object" (except private
instance variables) paradigm by associating properties and
behavior with individual classes, ..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Is this one of those esoteric details that mere mortals
are not meant to understand, or is this an error?<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"(except private instance variables)" looks like a dig
or a jibe. I would have put it</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> "...Smalltalk-80 added [[metaclass]]es, to help
maintain the "everything is an object" paradigm by
allowing classes to have their own specific state and
behavior, ..."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Perhaps they were trying to say that because Smalltalk
lacks private instance variables Smalltalk objects are not
true objects, which is I suppose arguable. But it makes
poor sense to state that private instance variables aren't
objects; public inst vars aren't objects either.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>It's plain nonsense. Here's the edit that added the "private
instance" modifier:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smalltalk&diff=prev&oldid=280020438" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smalltalk&diff=prev&oldid=280020438</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Someone should just correct it.</div>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div>
So now I just confused (more). Instance variables are NOT objects in
Squeak?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div><div>No they're not. They're elements of objects. Instance variables contain references to objects but you can't send messages to instance variables, only to their contents. In Smalltalk instance variables implement the state of objects while classes implement the behavior of objects.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think that's sloppy language, Bert. An instance variable is /not/ an object. An instance variable is a reference to an object. variables != values. Yes, it's complicated but the binding of names to values is essential to programming languages.</div>
<div><br></div><div>best</div><div>Eliot</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>HTH</div><div>Eliot</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Lawson<br>
<br>
</div>
<br><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br>