Dynamic scoping (was: Proposal: Squeak-E = Squeak x Kernel-E)

Avi Bryant avi at beta4.com
Wed Jan 29 21:27:40 UTC 2003

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Lex Spoon wrote:

> Either way should be fine, though.  I think you want *some* mechanism to
> break out, within the method.  If nothing else, it is nice to do things
> like:
> 	aPrivilagedMethod
> 		!PrivilagedEnvironment clamp: [ ".. do some privilaged stuff.." ]
> But maybe I just haven't thought enough about how to get rid of the last
> few instances.


Do you think it's necessary to be able to both statically and dynamically
access the same variable names, or simply to have some statically bound
variables that only priviledged methods could access?  If you really
needed both you could have "Smalltalk" (dynamically bound) and
"BasicSmalltalk" (statically bound) or some such.

That is, currently there's no problem (or at least not much grumbling)
with having an identifier Foo able to be either a class var, or a pool
var, or a (static) global; instead of adding new syntax, why not just add
dynamic global as a possibility?


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list