<div dir="ltr">Currently, resolution is performed at compile time, so only the environment you used to compile the superclass matters, at least that's how I understand it.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
2013/7/30 Frank Shearar <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:frank.shearar@gmail.com" target="_blank">frank.shearar@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 30 July 2013 21:15, Nicolas Cellier<br>
<div><div class="h5"><<a href="mailto:nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com">nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Currently, bindingOf:environment: will search for scope in superclass<br>
> environment.<br>
> This is an easy way to import all Smalltalk globals, since you'll end up<br>
> looking in Object/ProtoObject environment.<br>
><br>
> But is it the way it should be?<br>
> Couldn't we inherit from a class without importing all the environment in<br>
> which it was declared?<br>
><br>
> Couldn't we instead explicitily ask to import: #SomeClass or all of<br>
> Smalltalk globals?<br>
> (Beware, someone must ask Smalltalk to export: #SomeClass, or exportSelf for<br>
> such import to be possible)<br>
<br>
</div></div>I would prefer to see explicit imports.<br>
<br>
What would happen to class references in the superclass? Would those<br>
resolve in the context of the superclass' environment, or the<br>
subclass'? (I think it would be more useful to resolve said references<br>
in the subclass, but I haven't thought long and hard about the<br>
problem.)<br>
<br>
frank<br>
<br>
> Nicolas<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>