[Q] literals of a methods

Bob Arning arning at charm.net
Tue Mar 4 00:40:32 UTC 2003


On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 01:32:21 +0100 Alexandre Bergel <bergel at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
>I am wondering why the following expression is false.
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=3D-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>nil class compile: 'foobar Object new asMorph'.
>(nil class >> #foobar) literals includesAllOf: #(new asMorph)
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=3D-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>If anyone could help me to make a light on this point...

In this example, #new is not seen in the literals because there is a special bytecode to send #new.

Cheers,
Bob



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list