<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">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;">
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><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;"><font color="#888888">
<br>
<br>
Lawson<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>