<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Frank Shearar <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:frank.shearar@gmail.com" target="_blank">frank.shearar@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 12 October 2012 17:42, Chris Cunnington<br>
<div class="im"><<a href="mailto:smalltalktelevision@gmail.com">smalltalktelevision@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On 12-10-12 12:26 PM, Frank Shearar wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On 12 October 2012 17:21, Chris Cunnington<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:smalltalktelevision@gmail.com">smalltalktelevision@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> I've been looking at MetaObjects's [1] decade old implementation of the<br>
>>> vm<br>
>>> in Cocoa. It has a class called SqueakInterpreter.h that defines a<br>
>>> protocol<br>
>>> that is used in SqView. The selectors are listed in SqueakInterpreter.h<br>
>>> but<br>
>>> implemented in SqView.m. I believe this kind of thing is now called a<br>
>>> category in Objective-C-ese. And I was wondering why somebody would do<br>
>>> this?<br>
>>> We don't separate the protocols from the classes in Smalltalk. And I<br>
>>> think<br>
>>> the reason is we use abstract superclasses. And we have deep user<br>
>>> developed<br>
>>> hierarchies.<br>
>><br>
>> Protocols allow you to say "these messages, unrelated by inheritance,<br>
>> nevertheless both understand these sets of messages".<br>
><br>
> There's something dicey about this wording, I feel. Messages don't<br>
> understand messages. Objects do. "These objects, unrelated by inheritance,<br>
> nevertheless both understand these sets of messages." Perhaps?<br>
<br>
</div>Er yes, that's what I had _meant_ to type.<br>
<br>
(But of course Message instances are objects, and understand messages :) )<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></blockquote><div> </div></div>Absolutely. I knew there was a wrinkle I wasn't seeing. :)<br>
<br>Chris <br>