Tim,

One thing I forgot: You might want to introduce your own "undeclared"
repository. The reason for doing so is that references from undeclared
get picked up by the compiler automatically which means if you load
later code it might accidentally hand out references to stuff you don't
want to hand out. In other words, it might be useful to either raise an
error if you run into an undefined variable name at the restricted scope
or to have your own class variable "undeclared" which could even be used
for handling implicitly declared globals at thatlevel (if I guess
correctly at what you want this for it might be a very useful thing to
have ;-) Just a minor thing to be aware of.

Cheers,
  - Andreas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tim Rowledge
> Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 9:56 PM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: RE: Restricting the scope for the compiler?
> 
> 
> "Andreas Raab" <Andreas.Raab at gmx.de> is claimed by the 
> authorities to have written:
> 
> > Trivial to do - just implement #scopeHas:ifTrue: in the right plac
> Thanks - looks like an excellent place to trap things. IIUIC I should
> even be able to allow a few globals through.
> 
> Whilst looking around that area I spotted a couple of odd seeming
> methods and simply added a comment to mark what seems odd to me.
> Attached...
> 
> tim
> -- 
> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> Useful Latin Phrases:- Aio, quantitas magna frumentorum est. 
> = Yes, that is a very large amount of corn.
>