Safe pattern for creating new root classes

dpennell at dpennell at
Sat Mar 25 01:00:59 UTC 2000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lex Spoon [mailto:lex at]
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 12:20 PM
> To: squeak at
> Subject: RE: Safe pattern for creating new root classes

> > 
> > Or we could dynamically load the superclass...
> > 
> Where would you load it from?  The problem is when you say:
> 	A subclass: B
> and A doesn't exist (yet).  Currently, B ends up as a new root class,
> which probably wasn't intended.  It's especially problematic because
> loading a future version of A, will not correct B's definition.

If we had dynamically loaded classes, like a certain other language,
we would first try to load A.  I'm assuming that this might tie into
some of the work that SqC is in the middle of.


PS - Is my mail reader sending out MIME again?  I got a new machine
yesterday with Outlook 2000 and I have been through every menu I can
find and it looks like its supposed to be sending plain text.  The 
Format menu on this message claims that I'm in plain text.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list