Squeak already has private method support (was Re: FW: Pressu
Ivan Tomek
ivan.tomek at acadiau.ca
Sun Feb 21 14:33:06 UTC 1999
Date forwarded: 20 Feb 1999 17:28:17 -0000
Date sent: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 09:06:15 -0800 (GMT)
From: Tim Rowledge <rowledge at interval.com>
Subject: RE: Squeak already has private method support (was Re: FW: Pressu
To: Squeak mailinglist <squeak at cs.uiuc.edu>
Forwarded by: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
Send reply to: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
>
> So, it is as always a balance between function and performance. Is enforcable
> runtime privacy worth a couple of cycles added to a two or three hundred
> cycle send routine? What do people think?
>
>
Isn't optional runtime checking a possibility?
Ivan Tomek,
Jodrey School of Computer Science
Acadia University
Nova Scotia, Canada
fax: (902) 585-1067
voice: (902) 585-1467
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
Go Smalltalk.
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|