Tim,

argumentCount should be 0.

rob

!Interpreter methodsFor: 'common selector sends' stamp: 'tpr 1/5/2002 11:19'!
bytecodePrimClass

         messageSelector _ self specialSelector: 23.
         argumentCount _ 0.
         self normalSend.
! !


At 02:22 PM 1/5/2002, you wrote:
>"Andreas Raab" <Andreas.Raab at gmx.de> is widely believed to have written:
>
> > In certain places it is critical that the class of an object cannot be
> > forged. Otherwise you would need to know beforehand which methods you can
> > send to proxies and which ones you don't.
>Good point. The nice thing about the curent special bytecode 199 is that
>it is absolutely going to return the oop in the class field. The _bad_
>thing about it is .... exactly the same!
>
>I don't think we want to remove the bytecode right now (it would mean
>recompiling everything and that is tedious) but we could change it to
>be like most of the other bytecodePrim bytecodes and do the message
>send. I guess adding #class/#basicClass split like #new/#basicNew should
>be acceptable to most proxinators, but I expect there are some methods
>out there that will need editing to work with this change.
>
>I don't think I 've ever come across a proxying scheme that really
>worked completely; there's always some awkard balancing act to try to
>cope with basic messages either refering to the proxy or the proxant (my
>new word for the thing the proxy is proxying for. A license to use this
>word can be obtained from my business agents, 'Dewey, Cheatham and Howe')
>and what do you do to get to the 'other side'... Somebody somewhere must
>have really got it right but I've never had the priviledge of working
>with it.
>
>Small example changeset enclosed to illustrate the likely vm change.
>
>tim
>--
>Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
>Strange OpCodes: RP: Read Printer