>It is not that simple, at least not for the general case (i.e. with no
>limitations on the superclasses).  The trickiest thing is the instance
>layout.

By talking about Behavior instances instead of ordinary classes, I hoped to
made clear that instance variables (which are introduced by
ClassDescription, not by Behavior) aren't a problem.  Because my change is
compatible with the "old" classes, instance layout can be defined by
ordinary classes, my MapClasses are just mixins.

>Alternative solutions would need the VM support.

That's no problem as I actually talked about a VM-level solution and asked
whether this small VM change would be enough.


bye
--
Stefan Matthias Aust  //  Are you ready to discover the twilight zone?